Appeal No. 1999-0983 Application No. 08/782,891 with regard to the "equivalents" of the bead wire, so that appellant's recitation of "carcass anchoring means" for the first time in a non-original claim does not constitute new matter. In the first place, it is not clear that "carcass3 anchoring means" does in fact include structure other than a bead wire, since the examiner has not identified anything known in the art which would be the equivalent of a bead wire under § 112, sixth paragraph. Secondly, we consider that the4 above-quoted disclosure from page 6, line 26, to page 7, line 13, of the specification would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill that appellant was in possession, not only of a bead wire as an element of the invention, but also of equivalents of the bead wire. Thus, as stated on page 7, lines 7 to 9, the arrangement of the carcass and anchoring to a bead wire is "not limitative, and other arrangements can be adopted within the bead." Also, in lines 9 to 13 appellant 3"Carcass anchoring means" was first recited in a claim when claim 4 was amended and claim 14 was added by amendment filed August 16, 1995 (Paper No. 8). 4An equivalent structure under § 112, sixth paragraph, must be a structure that was available at the time of the issuance of the claim. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l., Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1320, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007