Appeal No. 2002-1214
Application No. 09/062,046
result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848, 120 USPQ 528, 531
(CCPA 1959); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16, 80 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA
1948). If the prior art structure possesses all the claimed characteristics including
the capability of performing the claimed function, then there is a prima facie case of
unpatentability. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67
(CCPA 1971).
Miller describes an apparatus for the application of heat and pressure to a
work element. (Col. 1, ll. 3-4). According to the Examiner, the apparatus of Miller
includes an upper member including a pressure member and at least one end
member and a lower member including a pressure member and at least one end
member. (Answer, p. 4).
Appellants argue that claim 38 includes limitations that “cannot be
disregarded as being immaterial to patentability as the limitations clearly impart
structural definition to the claimed apparatus. The upper member and the lower
member must both be configured so as to be able to be used in the bonding of fiber
elements of a composite structure. Therefore, the ‘functional’ claim language
imparts size and shape limitations on the present invention.” (Brief, pp. 9-10).
Claim 38 is directed to an apparatus. The claim specifies that the apparatus
is “for use in the bonding of fiber elements of a composite structure”. Appellants
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007