Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
equivalents under § 112, sixth paragraph, of appellant’s
controller, motor and reduction gear set. In Odetics, Inc. v.
Storage Technology Corp.,
185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999),
the court stated:
Structural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6 is met only
if the differences are insubstantial, see
Chiuminatta,[ ] 145 F.3d at 1308, 46 USPQ2d at 1756;5
that is, if the assertedly equivalent structure
performs the claimed function in substantially the
same way to achieve substantially the same result as
the corresponding structure described in the
specification. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus
function claim literally covers “the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof” (emphasis
supplied)).
Applying this test in the instant case, we do not consider
that the differences between appellant’s disclosed controller,
motor and reduction gear set arrangement and Douglas’
manually-operated handle and spindle are insubstantial.
Douglas therefore does not disclose an equivalent of
appellant’s structure which corresponds to the claimed “drive
means,” and consequently does not anticipate claim 26.
Rejection (3) accordingly will not be sustained.
5 Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus.
Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 46 USPQ2d 1752 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007