Appeal No. 1997-4077
Application No. 08/441,989
Figures 1 and 2 of Shinohara show that when the first and
second coupling members are fixed to one another by means of
the nut 4 with the gasket 3 enclosed between opposed end faces
of the first and second coupling members 1 and 2, the escape
holes 22 are radially aligned with the gasket 3 and the
opposed end faces of the first and second coupling members.
Appellants do not argue that the escape holes 22 shown by
Shinohara are not radially aligned with the “abutting” end
faces of the joint members. Instead, appellants argue at page
2 of the reply brief
that there is no teaching or suggestion in Shinohara that the
holes or ports 22 should be used for viewing the gasket. We
must point out, however, that the recitation in claim 1 of an
inspection window “for viewing said gasket” merely sets forth
a function which the ports or holes 22 in Shinohara must be
capable of performing and it is well settled that if a prior
art device inherently possesses the capability of functioning
in the manner claimed, the claim reads on the prior art device
regardless of whether there was a recognition that it could be
used to perform the claimed function. See, e.g., In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007