Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
member 11 and handle adapter 21, which removably secure the
rod 22 in receiver 5 (page 10, lines 4 to 14).
One structure is the equivalent of another within the
meaning of § 112, sixth paragraph, if it "results from an
insubstantial change which adds nothing of significance to the
[disclosed] structure." Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke
Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed. Cir.
1993), quoted in Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts Inc. v.
Cardinal Industries Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752,
1756 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Applying that test here, we believe it
is evident that rods 16 of Albert would not simply be the
result of an "insubstantial change" in appellant’s disclosed
tubular rod receiver and associated rod-securing parts.
The examiner, however, notes the following language at
page 11, line 25, to page 12, line 7, of appellant’s
specification:
Although the invention has been described
in detail with particular reference to these
preferred embodiments, other embodiments can
achieve the same results. Variations in the
invention may include shape, size and
arrangement of parts but variations and
modifications of the present invention will be
obvious to those skilled in the art and it is
intended to cover in the appended claims all
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007