Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 8
Application No. 09/314,267
In this case, the examiner has not (i) identified the structure described in the
patent specification that corresponds to the claimed function; (ii) determined if the
structure in the prior art that performs the claimed function is the same as any structure
described in the patent specification that corresponds to the claimed function; and
(iii) determined if the structure in the prior art that performs the claimed function is
equivalent to any structure described in the patent specification that corresponds to the
claimed function.
We remand this application to the examiner for the following further action.
(1) Identify the structure or structures described in the patent specification that
corresponds to the claimed function of the "means for connecting the torsion elements
so that the torsional load on one of the torsion elements is transmitted to one or more of
the other of the torsion elements to which said one of the torsion elements is
connected;"
(2) Determine if the structure in the prior art that performs the claimed function is the
same as any structure described in the patent specification that corresponds to the
claimed function of the "means for connecting the torsion elements so that the torsional
6(...continued)
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art
for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification; (C) there are insubstantial differences
between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification; and (D) the
prior art element is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007