Appeal No. 97-1697
Application No. 08/336,170
on something disclosed in the reference. See Kallman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp. 713 F.2d, 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 799,
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), over
ruled-in-part on another issue, 775 F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ 577
(Fed. Cir. 1990). As noted by us above, we are in agreement
with the appellants that the applied prior art to Kurtin does
not disclose a flexible elongated operating member movable
lengthwise responsive to movement of the finger-operated
positioner. For this reason, no finding of anticipation based
on the Kurtin reference is proper. The rejection of the
claims on appeal is reversed. 2
2With respect to the actuator means as the ultimate
limitation in claim 1, we note that "actuator means" is stated
in means plus funtion language which triggers the application
of 35 USC § 112, paragraph 6. Therefore, one construing the
means-plus-function language in the claim must look to the
specification and interpret the language of the claim in light
of the corresponding structures, material, or acts described
in the specification and equivalents thereof. The actuator
means disclosed in the specification are the cam 30 and the
cam follower 12. The actuator tab 19 of the reference is not
seen to correspond to this structure and its equivalents.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007