Appeal No. 2004-0918 Page 7
Application No. 09/715,547
conclusion that one element is or is not an "equivalent" of a different element in the
context of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Among the indicia that will support a
conclusion that one element is or is not an equivalent of another are:
(A) Whether the prior art element(s) performs the function specified in the
claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results
as the corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification. Odetics Inc. v.
Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir.
1999);
(B) Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
interchangeability of the element(s) shown in the prior art for the corresponding
element(s) disclosed in the specification. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International Inc.,
174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta
Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46
USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
(C) Whether the prior art element(s) is a structural equivalent of the
corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification. In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
(D) Whether there are insubstantial differences between the prior art
element(s) and the corresponding element(s) disclosed in the specification. IMS
Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007