Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
We therefore will not sustain rejection (2) as to claim
8, or as to its dependent claim 10, but will sustain rejection
(2) as to claims 1, 11, 26 and 29.
Rejection (3)
The sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 provides that if a
claim contains an element expressed as a means plus function,
the claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding
structure
. . . described in the specification and equivalents thereof”;
this provision is applicable to claims before the Patent and
Trademark Office. Donaldson, supra. As discussed in
connection with rejection (1), appellant’s disclosed structure
which corresponds to the drive means recited in claim 26 is
the controller 120, motor 64, and reduction gear set 68.
Turning to the Douglas reference applied in rejection
(3), we will assume arguendo that, as postulated by the
examiner, the edge of 14 constitutes a “cam member,” and hole
26 (more accurately, moveable rail 23 containing keyhole
opening 25) is a “keeper.” The rail 25 is moved by manual
operation of handle 29, which rotates spindle 30. These items
do not constitute the claimed “drive means” unless they are
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007