Appeal No. 1999-2030 Page 10
Application No. 08/423,077
Kolff is not an "equivalent" of the structure disclosed by the
appellant. In that regard, it is clear to us that the
structure of Kolff does not perform the function specified in
the claim in substantially the same way, and does not produce
substantially the same result as the corresponding element
disclosed by the appellant. Furthermore, it is our view that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the
prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the
appellant's specification. Based upon the above
determinations, we conclude that there are substantial
differences between the structure of Kolff and the structure
disclosed by the appellant. Accordingly, under the above-
noted tests for determining equivalence under the sixth
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 we conclude that the structure of Kolff is not
equivalent to the structure disclosed by the appellant.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claims 1 and 17, and claims 2,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007