Appeal No. 2002-1475 Page 16
Application No. 09/370,935
is at the automotive dealer’s showroom. We are not persuaded by
appellants’ assertion that the prior art neither teaches nor
suggests a vehicular data exchange system that is used to
exchange vehicular data relating to a trade-in vehicle of a
prospective customer. As stated by the court In re Hiniker Co.,
150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) “[the
name of the game is the claim, etc.” Claim 30 recites that “[a]
vehicular data exchange system adapted for use to exchange
vehicular data relating to a trade-in vehicle of a prospective
customer among a plurality of vehicle dealership users.” We find
that the language in question is in the form of functional
language drafted as an “adapted to” clause. There is nothing
inherently wrong with functional language, and we construe the
language to be a broad recitation of structure. In order to meet
the language, it is not necessary that the prior art specifically
disclose that the prior art is adapted to carry out the recited
function. Rather, what is required is that the prior art be
capable of carrying out the recited function, i.e., is adapted to
carry out the recited function. Turning to Giovannoli, we find
that Giovannoli’s disclosure of filtering quotation data, by
sending the filtered information over the internet to vendors who
will directly respond to the buyer, suggests that the system of
Giovannoli is capable of exchanging vehicular data relating to
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007