Appeal No. 2004-1110
Application No. 08/866,754
According to the appellants, this is because patentee’s latch 70
prevents the relative motion under consideration and thereby
“prevents the teeth and recesses from functioning as applicants’
engaging element is required to function by the recitation of
applicants’ claim 52" (brief, page 7). The appellants’ position
is not well taken for a number of reasons.
First, it is indisputable that the Gordecki disclosure
contains no express teaching that latch 70 prevents relative
motion as urged by the appellants. Second, it is unreasonable to
believe patentee’s latch 70 would inherently perform such a
function since it is explicitly disclosed by Gordecki as being
“thin enough to provide elasticity” (column 2, lines 7-8). That
is, it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect Gordecki’s
elastic latch 70 to be capable of preventing relative motion in
accordance with the functional language of claim 52. Third, even
if this latch inhibited relative motion to some degree, the teeth
and recesses (i.e., engaging elements) of Gordecki’s device still
would function to prevent relative motion to at least some extent
3(...continued)
the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372, 54 USPQ2d at
1667. When claim 52 is so interpreted, particularly in light of
the penultimate paragraph disclosure on specification page 7, it
is clear that the claim language in question merely requires the
engaging elements to restrict either one or the other or both of
bending and torsional motion.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007