Appeal No. 98-1049
Application 08/493,463
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review we have reached the determina-
tion that the examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our reasoning follows.
Looking to the examiner's prior art rejection of
claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that claim 18 sets
forth “means for securely mounting,” which means are located
or arranged at one end of the first and second upright support
pillars of the claimed picnic caddy. As urged by appellant on
pages 5 and 6 of the brief, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, the recited means must be construed to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification and
equivalents thereof. From Figures 1, 2 and 3, and the de-
scription thereof in the specification, it is readily apparent
that the “means for securely mounting” of claim 18 on appeal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007