Ex parte BERGE et al. - Page 15




               Appeal No. 1998-1711                                                                         Page 15                 
               Application No. 08/506,387                                                                                           


               capabilities of a person skilled in the art.  The embodiment of Figure 2 of Penkwitz, for                            
               example, wherein the expansion tank is adapted to surround the washing fluid reservoir, would                        
               have illustrated to such an artisan one simple manner of juxtaposing the expansion tank with the                     
               reservoir 100 of Eustache by forming the expansion tank so as to surround the reservoir 100 in                       
               much the same manner that the reservoir 100 is formed to surround the air conduit 190.                               
                       As to claim 5, which depends from claim 4 and additionally requires that the further                         
               reservoir be adapted to contain a hydraulic fluid and that the apparatus include means for                           
               connecting the further reservoir to a hydraulic control circuit , the expansion tank taught by7                                                    

               Penkwitz appears fully capable of containing a hydraulic fluid.  Further, as the connection 22                       
               for a compensator line taught by Penkwitz unquestionably performs a connecting function and                          
               as the appellants' specification fails to provide any details of the means for connecting which                      
               would preclude this type of connection structure, the connection 22 fully responds to the recited                    
               "means for connecting said further liquid reservoir to a hydraulic control circuit."8                                
                       As to claim 6, the expansion tank taught by Penkwitz, as we see it, is fully capable of                      
               containing a hydraulic braking fluid for use in a hydraulic braking circuit and the claim requires                   
               no more than this.                                                                                                   

                       7Neither the vehicle nor the hydraulic control circuit is positively recited as part of the claimed invention.
                       8In order to meet a "means-plus-function" limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the identical function  
               recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using the structure disclosed in the specification or an
               equivalent structure.  Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578, 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).                      







Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007