Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/143,977
LaBounty Mfg. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1032
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (in quoting with approval from Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v.
Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir. 1928)):
The use for which the [anticipatory] apparatus was
intended is irrelevant, if it could be employed
without change for the purposes of the patent; the
statute authorizes the patenting of machines, not
of their uses.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 10) that the focus of the disclosed structure of Moses is
entirely on a suspended support system, and not on a security apparatus for a door or
window as claimed. It is argued (id.) that there is no teaching that the suspension
structure may be used to close an opening and that “the telescopic support column 20
attaches to a support beam 40, which may be used as a carrier rail for suspended
equipment or the like. It may not be mounted within a frame of a window or a door, nor
would there be any reason to do so.”
With respect to the examiner’s assertion that Moses is capable of performing the
claimed intended use, appellant asserts (brief, page 12) that Moses does not teach a
structure that can fasten to a frame at its second end and that “ plate 64 is not adapted
for attachment to a frame of a window or door, but merely to a channel structure 40 or a
rail. Even if the plate 60 were mounted at the top of a door or window frame, it would
not be mounted at the bottom, as the entire purpose of the structure in Moses is to allow
a device to hang free in a suspended position.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007