Appeal No. 97-0974
Application No. 08/234,294
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 2-
7 of the brief and pages 5-7 of the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in
the answer. This review leads us to conclude that the
rejection of claims 50-52, 74 and 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is sustainable. We will not, however,
sustain the rejection of claims 50-52, 74 and 75 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
We consider first the rejection of claims 50-52, 74 and
75 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Initially we note
that when claims are drafted in a means-plus-function format
in accordance with the sixth paragraph of § 112, a failure to
describe adequately the necessary structure, material, or acts
in the written description means that the drafter has failed
to comply with the mandate of the second paragraph of § 112.
In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 (Fed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007