Appeal No. 2005-0050
Application No. 10/143,261
described in the underlying specification and equivalents
thereof. See In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d
1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the examiner’s view, Hladky’s
simulated emergency buttons 114 through 127 constitute such
equivalent structures. By way of example, the examiner points to
Hladky’s HOLD GEAR button 115 for simulating a failure of the
landing gear operating system and explains that
such a malfunction would not be evident/initiated until
the time that the trainee would attempt to actuate the
landing gear to a different position (i.e. lowering the
landing gear for a landing toward the end of the
simulation), thus providing for a first time increment.
Using the same logic a “Hold Gear” malfunction can be
initiated at the beginning of the simulation (i.e.
raising the landing gear during a simulate take off),
thus providing for a second time increment [answer,
page 4].
It is well settled that for a means-plus-function limitation
to read on a device, the device must employ structure which not
only has identity or equivalence of the corresponding structure
described in the specification, but also identity of the function
specified in the claim. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc.
v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308, 46 USPQ2d 1752,
1755 (Fed. Cir. 1998); King Instrument Corp. v. Perego, 65 F.3d
941, 945-946, 36 USPQ2d 1129, 1131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the
present case, Hladky contains no indication that simulated
emergency buttons 114 through 127 allow for any sort of setting,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007