Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
limitation. Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1208, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
538 U.S. 1058 (2003). The next step is to identify the
corresponding structure in the written description necessary to
perform that function. Id. Two structures may be “equivalent”
for purposes of § 112, sixth paragraph, if they perform the
identical function in substantially the same way with
substantially the same result. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control
Papers Co., Inc., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315-16
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
Instead of performing the above described analysis
required by the sixth paragraph of § 112, the examiner has simply
made the unembellished and implicit determination that the distal
barbs of Hopper are equivalent to the pins 20 and sockets 22
disclosed in the appellant’s specification and drawing and
therefore correspond to the structure embraced by the here
claimed first connector means. Similarly, the examiner has
implicitly assumed without apparent analysis and certainly
without explanation that patentee’s barbs perform (or are capable
of performing) the claims 1 and 7 function of “releasably
interconnecting said first and second frame halves.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007