Appeal No. 1999-2030 Page 7
Application No. 08/423,077
In this case, the corresponding structure described in
the specification for performing the claimed function of the
"means for retaining" are the various hooks (28, 54, 62, 72,
84, 92, 109, 114, 128) shown in Figures 1-10 and the helix
(162) shown in Figure 14. Clearly, Kolff's balloon 46 on
catheter 40 does not correspond to the structure disclosed by
the appellant.
While there is no litmus test for an "equivalent" that
can be applied with absolute certainty and predictability,
there are several indicia that are sufficient to support a
conclusion that one element is or is not an "equivalent" of a
different element in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. Among the indicia that will support a conclusion
that one element is or is not an equivalent of another are:
(A) Whether the prior art element(s) performs the
function specified in the claim in substantially the same
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);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007