Appeal No. 2000-0450
Application No. 09/047,048
over the prior art, rather than a structural limitation. Cf.
In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1006, 158 USPQ 266, 268 (CCPA
1968) and In re Gregg, 244 F.2d 316, 317, 113 USPQ 526, 529
(CCPA 1957) ("it is well settled that claims drawn to
structure cannot be allowed unless they recite some structural
difference over the prior art"). As for the claimed bracket,
Matthysse discloses the bracket 15 attached to supporting
structure 12.
Finally, with regard to appellants' argument that the
Matthysse bracket does not allow vertical adjustment of the
pipe,
claim 10 recites "in said locked position said locking
portion . . . securing said pipe in a vertical position, in
said unlocked position said locking portion allowing vertical
movement of said pipe." Giving this language its broadest
reasonable interpretation, and not reading limitations
thereinto from the specification, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1993), we consider
it to be readable on Matthysse. The bracket 10 of Matthysse
secures pipe 18 in a vertical position in the sense that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007