Appeal No. 1998-2379
Application No. 08/315,942
processing to detect a target signal generated by the
object (i.e., the EAS marker) (brief, page 2). Thus,
Martin is neither in the same field of endeavor nor is it
pertinent to the particular problem addressed by
appellants, and, it is, therefore, clear that Martin is
not analogous to the claimed invention. (See M.P.E.P.
§ 2141.01(a)).
It is noted that Andrews relies upon frequencies
that are selected from available energies such as
microwave or police radar (abstract); however, Andrews’
use of police radar energy does not present a convincing
reason for the combination of the two references.
As indicated supra, we agree with appellants’
argument that the claims on appeal should have been
interpreted in the manner required by the Court in
Donaldson. The claimed invention is presented in a
means-plus-function and a step-plus-function format,
and, therefore, the claims should have been construed to
“cover[] the corresponding structure[, material or acts]
described in the specification and equivalents thereof”
(brief, page 7). Appellants argue that “in light of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007