Appeal No. 98-1183 Page 12
Application No. 08/352,513
Lastly, the appellant argues that the applied prior art
does not suggest that the at least one element (i.e.,
Reynolds' stop members 46) engage an edge of a sash thereby
retaining the sash in a predetermined orientation relative to
the static support. While this is true, it is our opinion
that claim 8 does not recite the combination of the static
support and sash. Instead, claim 8 is directed to the static
support, per se, intended for use with the sash of a tilt-in
window as recited in the preamble of claim 8. All that the
functional recitations of the last clause of claim 8 require
is at least one element extending from the at least one cross
member beyond the top surface that is capable of engaging an
edge of a sash and thereby retaining the sash in a
predetermined orientation relative to the static support. It
seems the appellant is endeavoring to predicate patentability
upon the method of using the static support. However, the
manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not
germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.
See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA
1967); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d, 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706
(CCPA 1973). Furthermore, it is our opinion that Purves'
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007