Appeal No. 1996-3525 Page 14
Application No. 08/089,595
corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v. United States, 193 USPQ
449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as
set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air
Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant
to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy
Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975, n. 4, 226 USPQ 5, 8 - 9, n. 4
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the interchangeability of the
element shown in the prior art for the corresponding
element disclosed in the specification. Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl.
1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813
F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) Whether the prior art element is a structural
equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the
specification being examined. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). That is, the prior art
element performs the function specified in the claim in
substantially the same manner as the function is
performed by the corresponding element described in the
specification.
(D) Whether there are insubstantial differences
between the prior art element and the structure, material
or acts disclosed in the specification. Warner-Jenkinson
Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 117 S.Ct. 1040, 41
USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries. Inc. v.
Reinke Manufacturing Co. Inc., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d
1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In our opinion, the proper test for determining
equivalence under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
whether the differences between the structure in the prior art
device and the structure disclosed in the specification are
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007