Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 13
Application No. 08/541,013
way, and produces substantially the same results as the
corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification.
Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267,
51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
(B) Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the interchangeability of the
element(s) shown in the prior art for the corresponding
element(s) disclosed in the specification. Al-Site Corp.
v. VSI International Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d
1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete
Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303,
1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
(C) Whether the prior art element(s) is a structural
equivalent of the corresponding element(s) disclosed in
the specification. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
(D) Whether there are insubstantial differences
between the prior art element(s) and the corresponding
element(s) disclosed in the specification. IMS
Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422,
1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138-39 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Valmont
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007