Appeal No. 1999-2030 Page 8 Application No. 08/423,077 (B) Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element(s) shown in the prior art for the corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); (C) Whether the prior art element(s) is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990); (D) Whether there are insubstantial differences between the prior art element(s) and the corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138-39 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1993).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007