Ex Parte Deacon et al - Page 10




             Appeal No. 2003-1272                                                            Page 10                
             Application No. 10/039,338                                                                             



                    example). Preferably, the ridges are about as wide at their base as they are high.              
                    The ridges may be straight or curved in planes parallel to the shoe sole, and they              
                    may be chords, diameters, or radii of the bottom surface of the disklike flange 12.             
                    Preferably, the ridges are between about 0.03125" and 0.125" high. Preferably,                  
                    the flange's bottom surface has 8 crescent shaped ridges.                                       


                    The phrase "traction means" encompasses the corresponding structure                             
             described in the specification5, i.e., the traction ribs, and equivalents thereof.  In our             
             view, the meaning of "equivalents" is well understood in patent law and an applicant                   
             need not, and in fact can not, describe in his specification the full range of equivalents of          
             his invention, some of which may be nonexistent at the time the application is filed.6                 
             See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976), cert. denied, 434                    
             U.S. 875 (1977).                                                                                       

                    5More properly, the written description of the application.  See Hester Indus., Inc.            
             v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1483, 46 USPQ2d 1641, 1650 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Dawn                       
             Equip. Co. v. Ky. Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1014, 46 USPQ2d 1109, 1112 (Fed. Cir.                     
             1998).                                                                                                 
                    6We agree with the appellants that equivalents under the sixth paragraph of                     
             35 U.S.C. § 112 are, by definition, never disclosed in the application.  While an                      
             application may disclose one preferred embodiment to perform a function as well as                     
             numerous equivalent ways of performing that function, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth                     
             paragraph, the corresponding structure includes both the one preferred embodiment to                   
             perform a function and the numerous equivalent ways of performing that function.                       
             Thus, equivalents under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to a means for                          
             performing that function includes both equivalents of the one preferred embodiment that                
             performs the function and equivalents of the numerous disclosed equivalent ways of                     
             performing the function.                                                                               








Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007