Appeal No. 1996-3525 Page 17
Application No. 08/089,595
structure disclosed by the appellants, we conclude that the
structure of Morris '163 is not an "equivalent" of the
structure disclosed by the appellants. In that regard, it is
clear to us that the structure of Morris '163 does not perform
the function specified in the claim in substantially the same
way, and does not produce substantially the same result as the
corresponding element disclosed by the appellants.
Furthermore, it is our view that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not have recognized the interchangeability of
the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding
element disclosed in the specification. Based upon the above
determinations, we conclude that there are substantial
differences between the structure of Morris '163 and the
structure disclosed by the appellants. Accordingly, under the
above-noted test for determining equivalence under the sixth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 we conclude that the structure of Morris '163 is not
equivalent to the structure disclosed by the appellants.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007