Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
include that shown in Figure 3, plus equivalents thereof, and
we note that neither appellant nor the examiner has identified
any structure that should be interpreted as an “equivalent” to
the structure of Figure 3. Similarly, with regard to these
claims, we interpret the “sensing means” to include only that
which is specifically shown in Figures 1 and 2a-2c, and
equivalents thereof, noting, again, that neither appellant nor
the examiner has identified “equivalents.”
CONCLUSION
We have reversed the rejection of claims 16 through 31
under both first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112. We
have also reversed the rejection of claims 24 through 26 under
35 U.S.C. 103, based on a restrictive interpretation of the
claim language in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, and Donaldson, as urged by appellant. We have,
however, sustained the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) and the rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007