Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 11
Application No. 08/541,013
1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC
Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
It is our view that the function of the claimed "means
for latching" is not met by Holmes. In that regard, the
claimed function for the "means for latching" is that it
engages the means for locking upon the movement of the means
for locking from its first position to its second position to
retain the means for locking in its second position until the
axial movement of the inner cannula rearward relative to the
trocar cannula disengages the means for latching from the
means for locking. The ridge 40d of Holmes' trigger 40 does 2
not perform the function of the claimed "means for latching"
since ridge 40d engages with the leaf spring member 44 (i.e.,
means for locking) to move the leaf spring member 44 from its
first position to its second position and thus the ridge 40d
does not engage the leaf spring member 44 upon the movement of
the leaf spring member 44 from its first position to its
2Identified by the examiner (answer, pp. 3-4) as being
readable on the claimed "means for latching."
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007