Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 10
Application No. 08/541,013
into a position adjacent side section 40e. This is the
configuration shown in FIG. 5. The devices providing this
cam action are therefore also referred to collectively as
means for reactivating the blocking function of leaf
spring free end 44b.
Once the tip has penetrated the tissue and has
entered the cavity, the force against the front end of
the shield ceases and the shield is automatically moved
axially back to its extended position through the action
of spring 28. Even with the two subassemblies pressed
together and trigger 40 in its release position, free end
44b of the leaf spring member seats against lip 26a when
the shield returns to the extended position. This
configuration is shown in FIG. 6. Thus, while the
obturator tip remains in the body cavity, its tip is
protected by the protective shield which is locked into
the protective position so that the tip will not
accidentally cut viscera and other internal tissue
unintentionally.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-6) that Holmes does
not disclose "means for latching" as recited in claim 6. We
agree. In 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,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007