Appeal No. 2002-0334 Page 6
Application No. 08/779,361
examiner did not perform the required “means-plus-function” analysis in arriving at the
conclusion that claim 1 was anticipated by Cech, and as a result this panel of the Board
remanded the application to the examiner to do so (Paper No. 22). In the response to
the remand (Paper No. 25), the examiner states “while applicant does disclose a core
containing the volatile corrosion inhibitor material that is inserted into the inner sleeve
which is then covered by the exterior . . . it is not readily apparent from the specification
that these structures would have been considered to be the means for dispensing”
(page 3). While not precisely explained, it appears to us from paragraph (3) of page 3
of the response to the remand that the examiner has taken the position that Cech’s
core of volatile material 14, jacket 13 with holes 15, and outer sleeve 16, while not the
same as the structure disclosed by the appellant, is equivalent to the appellant’s
disclosed structure because it performs the same function and therefore meets the
terms of this “means-plus-function” recitation of structure in the claim. We do not agree
with this conclusion.
From our perspective, the specification indicates that the structure disclosed by
the appellant for dispensing volatile corrosion inhibiting material within the inner sleeve
comprises (1) an inner sleeve having a base which approximates the size of the rim of a
shell or cartridge and has a plurality of arms extending upwardly from the rim and
4(...continued)
for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification; (C) there are insubstantial differences
between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification; and (D) the
prior art element is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007