Ex parte HATTORI - Page 5

               Appeal No. 1999-1721                                                                           Page 5                 
               Application No. 08/734,125                                                                                            

               by claim 2 (brief, page 8).  Appellant further argues that "a rail and an elongated shaft portion,                    
               which includes the claimed plurality of ball holding means, are set forth in claim 2 on appeal as                     
               two separate elements" (brief, page 9).                                                                               
                       We hasten to point out that appellant's claim 2 does not, as appellant suggests, positively                   
               recite both a rail and an elongated shaft portion.  Rather, appellant's claim 2 is directed only to                   
               a ball holder "for" a retainerless saddle and "to be used" when the retainerless saddle is taken                      
               out of a rail.  From our viewpoint, the rail (2) of Hara possesses all of the structural limitations                  

               of appellant's claim 2 and reasonably appears to be fully capable of functioning in the manner called                 

               for in claim 2 (i.e., for positioning within the recess of  a retainerless saddle, only when the saddle is            

               taken out of a second rail, independent from the disclosed rail, to prevent steel balls from falling off the          

               saddle when the saddle is slid off the second rail).  Accordingly, the functional language of claim 2 does            

               not in this instance serve to patentably distinguish over the rail of Hara.  See, e.g., In re Swinehart, 439          

               F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 230-31 (CCPA 1971) and Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d                                    

               1949, 1950-51 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987).                                                                            

                       Although appellant is correct that Hara does not address that the disclosed track rail is to                  
               be used in the manner claimed, the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat                       
               the examiner's finding of anticipation.  It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use                 
               for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.  In re Schreiber, 128                        
               F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431(Fed. Cir. 1997).                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007