Appeal No. 99-1823
Application 08/964,278
structural terms of these claims and is fully capable of being
used in the manner defined in these claims. Specifically, the
examiner posits that:
While it is true that the collar 15 [of Humberson]
is securely mounted to the casing via bolts 14, the
circumferential orientation of the collar 15 can
conceivably be altered by merely loosening the bolts
and rotating the collar, about it’s axis 90 degrees,
then retightening the bolt. Even if the disclosure
of Humberson does not explicitly state that the
collar is to be circumferentially re-positioned, one
of ordinary skill in the art can readily see that
repositioning or adjusting the circumferential
position of the collar is possible by loosening the
bolts, rotating the collar, and tightening the bolts
to the casing. . . . [I]f the bolts are kept on the
collar 15 (after the bolts have been loosened from
the casing), then the process of “adjusting” the
collar of Humberson would be similar to the process
of “adjusting” as instantly claimed, i.e., no
removal of any components of the coupling structure
[would be] needed to attain the adjustable fixing of
the ramped guide member [relative to] the support
member since the claims do not preclude keeping the
bolts on the collar after the bolts have been
removed from the casing. Thus, it is respectfully
submitted that Humberson discloses each and every
element recited in the claims. [Answer, pages 5-6.]
With respect to functional language and statements of
intended use, it is sufficient that the prior art structure be
capable of performing the recited function or use. See, for
example, In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ 305, 307
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007