Appeal No. 2002-0161 Page 7
Application No. 09/348,615
receiving the lower rear corner of the monitor3. Accordingly, Lechman does not perform
the recited function using the structure disclosed in appellant’s specification.
The structure of the Figure 4 embodiment of Lechman alluded to by the
examiner (i.e., the ledge 58A and peripheral walls 56A), which at best merely serves as
a static support for the monitor, achieves the recited function in a much different
manner than the corresponding structure in appellant’s specification (i.e., the brackets,
slots, pins and floor structure), which provides a pivotable, movable support for the
display that supports the display throughout its movement between the stored and
viewing positions. Thus, we find no indication that the Lechman structure for
performing the recited function is an equivalent of the structure disclosed in appellant’s
specification4 and the examiner has offered no rationale as to why the Lechman
structure is an equivalent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with appellant that Lechman does not meet
the means limitation of claim 13 and thus cannot anticipate claim 13 or claims 2-5 which
depend from claim 13.
3 We have not overlooked other Lechman embodiments (e.g., Figures 7-10), not relied upon by
the examiner, which comprise arms or levers and brackets for supporting a pivotable and movable
monitor support member. None of these arrangements are designed to permit movement of the monitor
to either the inverted storage position or a viewing position wherein the display is inclined and situated at
least partially above the work surface, as called for in claim 13. In each of Lechman’s disclosed
embodiments, the monitor 60 is designed to remain beneath the top surface of the work table or platform.
4 See, e.g., Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308,
1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (In order for an accused structure to be a section 112, paragraph 6 "equivalent,"
it must (1) perform the identical function and (2) be otherwise insubstantially different with respect to
structure. Two structures may be "equivalent" for purposes of section 112, paragraph 6 if they perform
the identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007