Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
certain uses, whereas present claim 26 does so. In our view,
the recitations of “for securing” and “for mounting” are no
more than statements of intended use of the claimed cam
member, keeper, and drive means, which do not make a claim to
the combination of those items patentable. In re Schreiber,
supra. We note moreover with regard to the drive means that
an element expressed in terms of a means plus function is
anticipated by structure in a reference which is capable of
performing the functional limitation of the claimed means. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984). Here it appears evident that the drive means
disclosed by Miilu would be capable of performing the function
therefor recited in claim 26, since it operates to engage the
keeper 234 with the cam member 236 when the top is closed
against the header and a switch
(col. 2, lines 38 to 42) is activated.4
Accordingly we conclude that claim 26, and claim 29
4Although not argued by appellant, we note that the drive
means disclosed by Miilu, i.e., motor 214, gear train 216,
etc., is the equivalent, under § 112, sixth paragraph, of
appellant’s disclosed drive means. See Donaldson, supra.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007