Kenyon & Kenyon loses in Ex parte STOSCHEK
Of apparatus claims
of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims
directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of
structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
As to using the text "at least the same reasons":
With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants argue claim 9 is
allowable “for at least the same reasons provided above in support of the
patentability of claim 1” (App. Br. 6). Thus, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Upparapalli in view of Rasmussen, as well as the rejection of independent
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Upparapalli in view