Appeal No. 2000-0198 Page 7
Application No. 08/400,178
implanted in the medullary canal, and none disclose a quick release interlock means that
allows the components to be disconnected along the longitudinal axis of the stem
component.
The appellant additionally has argued that the claim recites the quick release
interlock in “means plus function” format, and that the comparable elements in the three
references fail to meet the terms of the claims when evaluated in the context of the sixth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We agree.
In order to meet a means-plus-function limitation, the prior art must perform the
identical function recited in the means limitation, and perform that function using the
structure disclosed in the appellant’s specification or an equivalent structure. See Valmont
Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir
1993). As to the first requirement, even if one were to consider that the release interlock
means disclosed in the applied references accomplishes the same function as the
claimed means, it does not do it using the same structure disclosed in the appellant’s
specification. In this regard, the appellant’s means for providing quick release between
components comprises a set of balls disposed in an annular opening in the head
component which interact with an annular groove in the stem component. A spring-loaded
sleeve cooperates with the balls to allow them to be locked in the annular groove in
response to movement along the longitudinal axis of the stem component, as shown in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007