Appeal No. 1999-2089 Page 9
Application No. 08/517,181
view (brief, pp. 11-12; reply brief, pp. 5-6) that Ball's
"means for releasable coupling" the elevator cage 6 to the
draw wing 45 has not been established to be an equivalent to
the structure disclosed by the appellants which correspond to
the claimed means. See In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193,
29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the PTO is not
exempt from following the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, paragraph 6).
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007