Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 14
Application No. 09/314,267
material" is inadequate to support a "means plus function" limitation and to comply with
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second and sixth paragraphs. Like the majority in
Atmel, 198 F.3d at 1378-79, 53 USPQ2d at 1228, it is my opinion that the "one skilled
in the art" mode of analysis applies when determining whether a 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,
"means plus function" limitation is sufficiently definite under paragraph 2 of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, and that it is "the disclosure in the specification itself, not the technical form of
the disclosure that counts."
I leave it to the examiner to determine if the subject matter incorporated by
reference into the specification adequately supports the "means for connecting the
torsion elements..." limitation in the claims of the present application and fully complies
with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. In addition, as was indicated above,
the examiner must perform a proper analysis of the "means plus function" limitation
vis-a-vis the prior art before we can make any reasonable determination on the
propriety of the prior art rejections currently on appeal.
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007