Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
defined by these claims (i.e., when the claimed feeding table is
adjacent a cutting table and when the claimed at least one vacuum
chuck is at one end of the previously mentioned cutting table).
In expressing his anticipation position, the examiner has failed
to address whether the vacuum chuck of Curtze and Lisec ‘555
would possess this overlapping capability. It is clear to us,
however, that the prior art vacuum chucks would be incapable of
performing the overlapping function required by the here claimed
vacuum chucks. This is because the vacuum chucks of Curtze and
Lisec ‘555 are located completely within the boundaries of their
respective cutting tables. In contrast, the appellant’s vacuum
chucks 42 extend beyond the boundaries of his cutting table 20 so
as to overlap feeding table 34 and the glass workpiece W thereon.
We here emphasize that a claim is not anticipated by prior art
which lacks structure capable of performing a functional
limitation of the claim. In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ
305, 307 (CCPA 1977); Compare in re Yanush, 477 F.2d at 960, 177
USPQ at 706 and In re Glass, 474 F.2d at 1019, 176 USPQ at 532.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain either the § 102
rejection of claims 1, 5 and 14 based on Curtze or the § 102
rejection of claim 14 based Lisec ‘555.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007