The opinion
RICH, Judge
(dissenting in part, with whom SMITH, Judge, joins).
I have a different view of claim 9 than that stated in the court’s opinion by reason of which I would also reverse the rejection of that claim.
It is said that claim 9 recites “a ‘line-jamming passage’ rather than a nip and ‘a second flared entrance’ rather than an additional cam means.” I think this is an erroneous reading. Here is the pertinent language of claim 9 (my emphasis) :
* * * and MEANS defining a second flared entrance to said passage oriented approximately 90° to said first flared entrance, SAID MEANS being adapted to be engaged by a line intermediately of its ends, said passage being opened to admit a line pressed against SAID second flared entrance MEANS by movement of the line in a direction that is more radial of the line than axial thereof.
I think this as clearly distinguishes from the sole reference as the other language found to do so in claims 3 and 4 albeit it is functional language. The function performed, as recited in claim 9, cannot be performed by the structure of the reference. The reference requires movement of the line that is more axial than radial, the reverse of what the claim states.
As for allegedly not reciting a “nip” or a “cam means”, the “nip” of claims 3 and 4 is the “first flared entrance” of claim 9, parallel to base 10 between faces 22 and 24, denoted 20. It is defined in claim 9 as the first part of the “line-jamming passage,” called “line-receiving nip” in claim 3 and “line-gripping nip” in claim 4. I cannot agree that claim 9 differs materially with respect to a “nip.”
As to allegedly not reciting “cam means”, claim 9 calls for “MEANS defining a second flared entrance” and proceeds to limit that, or those, means by functional limitations. This is a good way to write a claim, assuming a court can be brought to an understanding of the meaning of the language. Claim 9 is, of course, a definition of a combination of elements constituting the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 , 3rd par., expressly authorizes the elements of such a claim to be defined in terms of “a means * -x- * for performing a specified function without the recital of structure * * * ”, and that is what appellant has done in claim 9. If heed is paid to the function performed by the recited MEANS, which is thereby limited, it quite clearly appears as a “cam means” in the same sense as in claims 3 and 4. Failure to use the word “cam” in claim 9 is no ground for saying that additional cam means are not included in claim 9, for they clearly are, when the language is understood according to its clear and intended meaning. The function is a camming function.
I therefore see claim 9 as containing in substance the same limitations which the court opinion finds to be a sufficient basis for reversing the rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Roberts’ single entrance may be considered to be a “flared entrance” but it will not perform according to the express functional limitations of claim 9 and the claim therefore distinguishes from that reference.
It is said “the claim language finds no correspondence in the specification.” Here is the corresponding language:
* * * means for facilitating the entry of a line between the cam elements upon movement of the line sideways radially of the line toward the nip of the cleat, thereby displacing the cam elements and enlarging the nip to receive and hold the line without necessitating its axial movement therein.
*600 ******* These cam-horns flare to a dimension approaching that of the diameter of the largest line that can be operatively used with the cam cleat of the size selected. This dimension need not be as large as the line, since a lesser space of entry into the nip will still be effective to insure the introduction of a line therein that is somewhat larger. *******
Movement of the line L radially toward the nip 20 in direction of arrow A, Figure 1, displaces the cam elements apart progressively until the clearance between the line-engaging faces 22 and 24 of the cam elements is substantially that of the diameter of the line, which then moves into line-holding position.
It seems to me the claim language of claim 9 finds full “correspondence in the specification.”
I would reverse the rejection of claim 9 as well as claims 3 and 4.