Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 12
Application No. 08/541,013
second position to retain the leaf spring member 44 in its
second position.
In addition, even if the ridge 40d of Holmes' trigger 40
performed the claimed function, it is our view that the ridge
40d of Holmes' trigger 40 is not an equivalent structure to 3
the structure disclosed in the appellants' specification for
performing the claimed function of the "means for latching."
While there is no litmus test for an "equivalent" that can be
applied with absolute certainty and predictability, there are
several indicia that are sufficient to support a conclusion
that one element is or is not an "equivalent" of a different
element in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Among the indicia that will support a conclusion that one
element is or is not an equivalent of another are:
(A) Whether the prior art element(s) performs the
function specified in the claim in substantially the same
3In this case, the corresponding structure described in
the specification for performing the claimed function of the
"means for latching" is the latch pin 104 and biasing spring
106. Clearly, the ridge 40d of Holmes' trigger 40 does not
correspond to the structure disclosed by the appellants.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007