Appeal No. 2002-1300
Application 09/481,422
compensation in the same way as the disclosed and claimed
compensation means [reply brief].
As noted from the arguments above, the issue in this
appeal is whether the structure disclosed by Witt can be said to
anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 the compensation means of claim
17 when the compensation means is interpreted to mean the
corresponding structure disclosed in appellants’ specification
and its equivalents. Although the only corresponding “structure”
disclosed in appellants’ specification is a box labeled
“COMPENSATION CIRCUIT” in Figure 4, the compensation circuit
performs the process shown in Figures 5 or 6. Appellants’
argument is essentially that the prior art compensation means
must perform the function of the claimed compensation means in
substantially the same way to produce substantially the same
result.
We agree that appellants’ argument constitutes at least
one way in which an examiner can demonstrate equivalence between
the prior art and the claimed means. Four factors are pointed
out at MPEP § 2183 to demonstrate equivalence. Each of these
factors requires a factual analysis to support the ultimate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007