Appeal No. 96-0423
Application 08/126,439
imparting a periodic oscillation to the antenna structure of
the combined teachings to
the hour angle and to the declination of the antenna. We are
persuaded by appellants’ reasoning at the following portions
of the brief and reply brief respectively:
Furthermore, if the references were combined in
the manner suggested by the Examiner, the resulting
device would have first means (i.e., the motor 40 in
Rothbarth et al. or the motorized jack 94 in Crean)
for imparting movement about the hour angle axis,
and second means (i.e., the motor 11 in Longhurst et
al.) for imparting movement about the declination
axis. By way of contrast, the oscillation means
recited in claim 3 is a single drive mechanism for
automatically imparting periodic oscillation of the
antenna about the hour angle axis and the
declination axis. [Brief, bottom page 14.]
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner is
misapplying § 112, sixth paragraph, and the relevant
case law (i.e., In re Donaldson) which requires
"means plus function" limitations to be construed as
corresponding to the structure disclosed in the
specification and equivalent structure for
performing the same function. The specification
clearly discloses a single drive mechanism (see Fig.
5) for imparting periodic oscillation to the hour
angle and the declination of the antenna, and thus
the Examiner must construe claim 3 to cover the
disclosed structure and equivalents thereof for
performing the recited function. None of the cited
references teach or suggest a single drive mechanism
or its structural equivalent for imparting a
periodic oscillation to the hour angle and the
declination of the antenna.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007