Appeal No. 2002-0334 Page 8
Application No. 08/779,361
for the rotation would not alter the total area through which the vapors can escape, that
is, the size or number of the holes.
Claim 1 states that there be a means “for dispensing volatile corrosion inhibiting
materials disposed within the inner sleeve.” Cech performs this function. Cech does
not, however, perform this function by structure identical to that disclosed by the
appellant. Nor, in our view, can the structure disclosed by Cech be considered to be
the equivalent of the structure described by the appellant in the specification, for it does
not have the capability to adjust the amount of corrosion inhibiting vapors that are
communicated from the material to the firearm, which is one of the objects of the
appellant’s invention (specification, sentence bridging pages 2 and 3). In this regard,
the examiner has not made findings in accordance with any one of the four tests set
forth in detail in Section 2183 of the MPEP for determining whether or not a prior art
element is an equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the appellant’s
specification (see footnote 4, supra), nor provided evidence that would support an
affirmative response to any of the them.
It therefore is our conclusion that the Cech structure is neither identical to nor the
equivalent of the structure disclosed by the appellant as the “means for dispensing
volatile corrosion inhibiting materials . . . .” This being the case, Cech does not disclose
or teach all of the subject recited in claim 1, and thus is not anticipatory thereof. The
rejection of claims 1, 4 and 8 is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007