Appeal No. 2004-0618
Application No. 10/021,790
In the present case, Kirschke’s metal ruler 40 and ruler
slide 41 perform the identical function specified by the
limitation at issue, i.e., they are reflective and changeable in
response to downward movement of the vertical test arm
(Kirschke’s deflection arm 37) so that a user can direct a
focused light source (Kirschke’s light means 57) toward them and
observe (via Kirschke’s camera 56) their state when the pipeline
inspection device is far from the user, thereby indicating to the
user any downward movement of the vertical test arm. Clearly, if
the metal ruler 40 and ruler slide 41 were not reflective as
argued by the appellants, they could not be illuminated by the
light means 57 and observed by the camera 56. The examiner has
found (1) that the vertical flag 70 and vertical indicators 72
described in the appellants’ specification embody structure
corresponding to the “reflective means” recited in claim 6,3 and
(2) that the metal ruler 40 and ruler slide 41 taught by Kirschke
constitute an equivalent of this disclosed structure. Both of
these findings are manifestly reasonable on their face and have
not been cogently disputed by the appellants.
3 In making this finding (see pages 4 and 5 in the answer),
the examiner at times erroneously refers to reference numerals 66
and 68, which denote the lateral flag and lateral indicators
disclosed by the appellants.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007