Appeal No. 2001-0299 10
Application No. 08/993,861
rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 102, including any specific limitations in
the rejected claims which are not described in the prior art relied upon in the rejection.”
Appellants’ entire argument in their brief (page 19) with respect to the rejection of
claim 11 as anticipated by Koch reads as follows:
Claim 11 is the “means-plus-function” equivalent of claim 7,
see page 5, lines 16+ for the means description. This claim
is distinguishable over Koch not only for the functional
differences presented above, but additionally in view of the
structural differences which must be interpreted in
conjunction with the specification as required by Section
112, 6th para. In this regard, the structural differences
presented above for claim 1 are also applicable to claim 11.
The “functional differences above” referred to in appellants’ brief relate to the
appellants’ arguments with respect to method claim 7, which were fully addressed on
pages 12-13 of our decision and again, supra. As for the “structural differences
presented above for claim 1," these arguments were fully addressed on pages 11-12
of our decision and again, supra. Finally, appellants’ broad reference to “structural
differences which must be interpreted in conjunction with the specification as required
by Section 112, 6th para.” does not specify the error in the rejection, including any
specific limitations in the rejected claim which are not described in the Koch patent, as
required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(C)(iii). The language in appellants’ brief is nothing
more than a vague boilerplate reference to the fact that means-plus-function language
as addressed in the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is contained in claim 11, as
distinguished from the method language of claim 7. As set forth in 37 CFR §
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007