Appeal No. 2000-0859 Page 7
Application No. 08/777,668
27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v.
Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454
(Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580,
12 USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this case, Rueter
does not perform the identical function recited in the means
limitation since his cover 32 (i.e., the decorative panel) is
not detachably fastened to be flush with the lid 20 (i.e., the
platform). Additionally, we fail to discern any structure in
Rueter that would be an equivalent structure to the structure
disclosed in the appellants' specification for performing the
function (i.e., recess 48 and continuous strip of hook-type
fastener material 50).
Since all the limitations of claim 9 are disclosed in
Rueter for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 to 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007