Appeal No. 98-0007
Application 08/440,907
Even assuming that it would have been obvious to use the
apparatus shown in Symon’s Fig. 5 to support an engine, we do
not find included therein a center support as recited. The
center support is defined functionally, i.e., by what it does;
this is permissible, and such functional limitation cannot be
ignored. However, an element which is defined functionally
may be unpatentable if the functional limitation is an inher-
ent characteristic of the prior art. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1478,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, elements 218 are
simply coplanar arms which are equidistantly located on wheel
212, and on which bars 220 are pivotally mounted (col. 9,
lines 40 to 46). Assuming that 212 and 218 may be designated
the “face plate” called for by claim 1, there is no teaching
or suggestion in Symon that one of the arms 218 would perform,
or could be modified to perform, the recited function of
engaging the drive pulley of an engine which was connected to
the face plate. Alternatively, it does not appear that one of
the arms 218 of Symon would inherently perform the recited
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007