Ex Parte Penlerick et al - Page 3





              Appeal No. 2003-0881                                                               Page 3                
              Application No. 09/658,561                                                                               



                                                      OPINION                                                          

                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                   

              the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, to the                     

              declaration of Mark Penlerick, and to the respective positions articulated by the                        

              appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                                

              determinations which follow.                                                                             



                     The main issue presented in this appeal is if the "tow hook means" of claim 13,                   

              the "tow hook members" of claims 24 and 25, and the "tow hook" of claim 26 are                           

              readable on4 Peterson's brackets 106 with apertures 110 therein.  In our view, the                       

              answer is no for the reasons adequately set forth in the declaration of Mark Penlerick                   

              and the brief.  Contrary to the position of the examiner, Peterson does disclose either a                





                     3 In our view, the tow hook means, the base plate means  and the connector means of claim 1 are   
              means-plus-function limitations that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6.
              The use of the term means raises a presumption that the recitation of a means-plus-function element is   
              intended.  See Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., 126 F.2d 1420, 1427, 44 USPQ2d 1103, 1109 (Fed. Cir.         
              1997).  In addition, the manner in which a means-plus-function element is expressed, either by a function
              followed by the term means or by the term means for followed by a function, is unimportant so long as the
              modifier of that term specifies a function to be performed.  See Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694, 695 (Bd.  
              App. 1967).                                                                                              
                     4 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is  
              encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.  As set forth by the     
              court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.    
              denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the
              reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."         








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007