Appeal No. 2001-2126
Application 09/141,069
stop means “for engaging the door when the door is in the
closed position,” and independent claim 21 sets forth a stop
block and flexible seal “adapted to simultaneously engage the
door.” These limitations employ functional language to define
the stop block by what it does rather than by what it is. 4
Thies neither expressly teaches that limb 4 performs the
foregoing functions nor provides the factual basis necessary
to find that the structure embodied by limb 4 is inherently
capable of so functioning. Thus, the examiner’s apparent
position that limb 4 meets the stop block (or means)
limitations in claims 1, 14, 18 and 21 under principles of
inherency is completely conjectural and without merit. Hence,
Thies cannot be said to disclose, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the subject
matter recited in claims 1, 14, 18 and 21.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 18 and 21,
4There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this claim
drafting technique. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213,
169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007