Appeal 2007-1909
Application 10/608,290
7. Murray discloses a clamp for use with concrete molds for clamping and
retaining mold parts or sections of a mold in fixed and spaced relation
(Murray, p. 1, ll. 1-5).
8. Murray’s clamp is formed of two jaw parts 5, 6, with jaw part 5
comprised of a crosshead 7 and a shank 8 (Murray, p. 1, ll. 49-56).
9. Murray discloses a link lever 19 pivoted to the end of jaw part 6 and
attached by means of a wing nut 21 to a lever 15 (Murray, p. 1,
ll. 102-109).
10. Murray describes that in operation, when the lever 15 is moved
downwardly, this forces the link lever 19 laterally and downwardly,
thus causing the face of jaw 6 to swing inwardly into engagement with
a wall 25 of a concrete mold or form (Murray, p. 2, ll. 32-37).
11. Murray’s apparatus does not include an arm adapted for insertion in an
aperture in a first edge flange of a repair clamp.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“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.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Although
“[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or
functionally … choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does,
carries with it a risk.” Id. at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. As the court stated in In re
Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971):
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013