Ex Parte Takano et al - Page 6



          Appeal No. 2006-1880                                                          
          Application No. 10/064,363                                                    
          structure.  It is well settled that the recitation of a new                   
          intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old             
          product patentable.  See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78,             
          44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), as follows:                         
               A patent applicant is free to recite features of an                      
               apparatus either structurally or functionally. See                       
               In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226,                        
               228 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]here is nothing intrinsically                       
               wrong with [defining something by what it does                           
               rather  than  what  it  is]  in  drafting  patent                        
               claims."). Yet, choosing to define an element                            
               functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with                        
               it a risk. As our predecessor court stated in                            
               Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228: where                       
               the Patent Office has reason to believe that a                           
               functional limitation asserted to be critical for                        
               establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter                       
               may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the                       
               prior art, it possesses the authority to require                         
               the applicant to prove that the subject matter                           
               shown to be in the prior art does not possess the                        
               characteristic relied on. See also In re Hallman,                        
               655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981);                        
               In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563,                        
               565-67 (CCPA 1971).                                                      
               We find that the examiner therefore correctly found that                 
          Scherzinger established a prima facie case of anticipation. At                
          that point, the burden shifted to Appellant to show that the                  
          prior art structure did not inherently possess the functionally               
          defined limitations of his claimed apparatus.  In re Schreiber,               
          128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                         


                                           6                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007