Appeal No. 96-2640
Application No. 08/068,273
and each mold being attached to a hydraulic cylinder (col. 6,
lines 3 to 9). In operation, the first hydraulic cylinder
clamps the first mold 1 and cylinder 3 against frame 8, and
the other hydraulic cylinder forces mold 2 against glass
preform 9 (col. 6, lines 7 to 13); thus, the Marechal
apparatus has a clamping means and
an independently operable compression means, as recited in
claim 1. As for claim 5, Marechal provides inactive gas to7
the region between the dies (col. 7, lines 4 to 10; col. 7,
line 68 to
line 2).
While Marechal discloses that core 1 is the lower core
and core 3 the upper core, such designation appears to be
7On page 15 of the brief, appellant argues that In re
Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-
49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), requires that the means-plus-function
language of his claims be construed to cover his corresponding
disclosed structure and equivalents thereof ( § 112, sixth
paragraph). However, since appellant does not disclose any
particular structure for the recited "clamping means" or the
recited "compression means" (except for rods 60, which would
be equivalent to the piston rod of Marechal’s hydraulic
cylinder), it is not apparent how appellant can argue that the
apparatus disclosed in the prior art is not the equivalent of
the "means" disclosed by him, nor does he explain why it would
not be.
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007