Appeal No. 2002-1143
Application No. 09/085,933
an entirely different field of endeavor than that of appellant’s
device and may be directed to an entirely different problem from
the one addressed by the appellant in the present case.6 Hence,
claim 21 “reads on” Dow’s template-roller such that claim 21 is
anticipated by Dow.
In a similar fashion, claim 21 is anticipated by adaptor 401
illustrated in Figure 5 of King, liner 24 best illustrated in
Figure 7 of Graham, coupling 32 of Figure 6B of Folden, and liner
element 14 of Neuhauser. More particularly, in King, sleeve 401
has an inner surface 408 defining a bore 405 and an outer surface
406 interrupted by grooves 410 that defines a plurality of core
segments; in Graham, liner 24 comprises a tubular wall having an
inner surface defining a bore 96 and an outer surface interrupted
by grooves 98 that define therebetween a plurality of core
segments; in Folden, coupling 32 has an inner surface defining a
bore and an outer surface divided into core segments by scoring
notch 38; and in Neuhauser, liner element 14 has an inner surface
6The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a
prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of that
claimed. See, for example, In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177
USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028,
1032, 168 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576,
580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937,
939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007