Appeal No. 2004-1110
Application No. 08/866,754
(and indeed to an extent far greater than the elastic latch). In
this regard, we observe that the functional language of claim 52
does not require substantial relative motion to be prevented by
the engaging elements only. See Comack Communications, Inc. v.
Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed.
Cir. 1998)(limitations from the specification are not to be read
into the claims).
Under these circumstances, we are led to the determination
that it is reasonable to consider the teeth and recesses of
Gordecki as inherently satisfying the functional requirements of
appealed independent claim 52 and correspondingly that it is
appropriate for the appellants to carry the burden of proving
otherwise. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also see In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d
210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) and In re Ludtke, 441
F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971). On the
record before us, the appellants have proffered no such proof.
Therefore, we hereby sustain the examiner’s section 102
rejection of claims 52 and 54-58 as being anticipated by
Gordecki.
Finally, the appellants argue that the Motorola device
appears to involve snaps matable with receptacles which are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007