Appeal 2007-2294
Application 09/740,169
the assembly of Chitwood, “[t]he person does not hang in a vertical
disposition that is perpendicular to the plane of the horizontal surface
supporting his traction assembly. That is, a person merely reclining on the
inclined Chitwood table 12 is not suspended as Applicant discloses and
claims.” (Id.) We agree, and the rejection is reversed.
In order for a prior art reference to be anticipatory, every element and
limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The limitation of the claim that “said harness means being effective to
maintain a person in a vertical traction suspension position after the person
dons said harness means” is written as “means-plus-function.” Sage Prods.
Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427, 44 USPQ2d 1103, 1109
(Fed. Cir. 1997)(The use of the term “means” raises a presumption that the
means-plus-function limitation is intended). A means-plus-function
limitation must be interpreted as the corresponding structure described in the
Specification and equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
paragraph. See, e.g., In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)( in banc).2
2 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(v) (2004) requires that “every means plus function
and step plus function as permitted by 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, must
be identified and the structure, material, or acts described in the specification
as corresponding to each claimed function must be set forth with reference
to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by
reference characters.” The rule was effective September 13, 2004, after the
filing date of the instant brief. 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013