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).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007