Appeal No. 2000-2008
Application No. 09/227,903
either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant
argues that claim 1 is not anticipated, because Bonfigli's
hold-down tab 46 cannot "be operated by a child to temporarily
press a location along said shoelace which has been laid in a
loop on said second shoe marking, against said upper surface,"
as recited in claim 1. The examiner's position seems to be
that this recitation does not differentiate the claimed
apparatus from the structure disclosed by Bonfigli because it
is a recitation of how the claimed apparatus is intended to be
employed (answer, page 5). However, we do not agree that the
quoted claim language is merely a recitation of the intended
use or function of the apparatus, but rather consider that it
imports a structural limitation into the claim. As disclosed
in appellant's specification at page 4, lines 19 to 21, and
shown in Fig. 2, the hold-down 42 lies along the loop marking
40 or slightly beyond it, holding a location 44 along the
corresponding shoelace loop 36 to the shoe device 12. Giving
the claim recitation in question its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of this disclosure (see In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)),
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007