Appeal No. 2004-0918 Page 9
Application No. 09/715,547
In any event, in applying the above-noted tests for determining equivalence
under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to ascertain whether the structure of either
Siklos' projection 20 or Benson's rigid supports 21 is or is not an "equivalent" of the
structure disclosed by the appellant, we conclude that neither Siklos' projection 20 nor
Benson's rigid supports 21 is an "equivalent" of the structure disclosed by the appellant.
In that regard, it is clear to us that Siklos' projection 20 or Benson's rigid supports 21 do
not perform the function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and do not
produce substantially the same result as the corresponding element disclosed by the
appellant. Furthermore, it is our view that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the
corresponding element disclosed in the appellant's specification. Based upon the above
determinations, we conclude that there are substantial differences between Siklos'
projection 20 and Benson's rigid supports 21 and the structure disclosed by the
appellant. Accordingly, under the above-noted tests for determining equivalence under
the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 we conclude that Siklos' projection 20 and
Benson's rigid supports 21 are not equivalent to the structure disclosed by the appellant.
In summary, we have reviewed the teachings of Siklos and Benson but fail to find any
teaching therein of the claimed "accommodating means."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007