Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
the here claimed workpiece feeding table and patentee’s suckers
41 as corresponding to the here claimed at least one vacuum
chuck.
There is no persuasive merit in the appellant’s belief that
this rejection is improper because Perobelli’s aforenoted
structure is not used in the environment of or in cooperation
with a glass cutting table having a movable bridge extending
thereacross which is the use described in appealed claim 14.
The critical consideration here is that claim 14 fails to
distinguish, in terms of either structure or function, over the
above discussed elements of patentee’s apparatus. See In re
Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959-60, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973), and
In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019, 176 USPQ 529, 532 (CCPA 1973).
Stated otherwise, the structure and function involved in moving
Perobelli’s sheets 10 from stand 9 via suckers 41 corresponds to
the structure and function involved in moving appellant’s
workpiece W from feeding table 34 via vacuum chucks 42 in
accordance with the requirements of appealed claim 14.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate that we sustain
the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 14 as being anticipated
by Perobelli.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007