Appeal No. 1999-0969
Application No. 08/790,501
argue. Instead, to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference
must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Although we disagree with the examiner's statement
regarding the means limitations, we nevertheless sustain the
rejection for the reasons that follow.
Appellant correctly notes that "functional language can
be used to define a structural element of (sic) claim" (reply
brief, page 2). The portion of the "means" clause, "said main
segment of said body having a predetermined drop rate faster
than said predetermined base drop rate when immersed in water
with the threshold weight attached thereto and said breakaway
segment removed therefrom" is described as "[t]he pertinent
language of claim 1" and it is asserted "[t]his is a
structural limitation claimed by functional language" (id.).
We find that all of the features of claim 1, including
the "means" limitation, are disclosed, expressly or
inherently, by Rigney. The "means" limitation of claim 1, is
met by the contour of the artificial bait shown in Rigney's
drawings. Appellant's disclosure recites several ways to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007