Appeal No. 2004-0918 Page 8
Application No. 09/715,547
1129, 1138-39 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983
F.2d 1039, 1043, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the anticipation rejections before us in this appeal, the examiner has
determined (answer, pp. 3-4) that the claimed "accommodating means" was readable
on2 Siklos' projection 20 and Benson's rigid supports 21. However, the examiner has
not set forth any basis as to why either Siklos' projection 20 or Benson's rigid supports
21 would be equivalent to the "accommodating means" (i.e., the L-shaped rails 30, 31
fixed to the opposite side walls and spaced apart to accommodate an audio or light
mixer and the audio or light effect device) disclosed in the present application. The
examiner never applied any of the above-noted indicia to support a conclusion that
either Siklos' projection 20 or Benson's rigid supports 21 is or is not an "equivalent" of
the structure disclosed by the appellant in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. Thus, it is our view that the examiner has not met the burden of establishing
a case of anticipation since the examiner has not established that either Siklos'
projection 20 or Benson's rigid supports 21 is an "equivalent" of the structure disclosed
by the appellant.
2 As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on'
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully
met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007