Appeal No. 2002-1038
Application 09/122,022
that the covering “cannot stretch or expand” as recited in claims
1 and 17.
Since Hemming and Beere ostensibly do not overcome the
foregoing flaw in the Parsons-Zimmerman combination, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claims 1 and 17, and dependent claims 2 through 6 and 18 through
36, as being unpatentable over Parsons in view of Zimmerman,
Hemming and Beere.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 7 through 16 as being unpatentable over
Parsons in view of Zimmerman, Hemming and Beere.
Parsons meets all of the limitations in independent claim 7
except for the one calling for “means for preventing the cover
from moving relative to the tube during expanding or collapsing
of the baton.” This means-plus-function recitation, construed as
it must be under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,2 covers the
corresponding structure described in the appellant’s
specification, i.e., at least one groove on the tube and a mating
2 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, states in pertinent part
that “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the
recital of structure . . . in support thereof, and such claim
shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . .
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007