Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 15
Application No. 09/314,267
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge, additional views
While I join with my colleagues in, inter alia, remanding this application to the
examiner to identify the structure(s) described in the specification that correspond(s) to
the means plus function limitation recited in the claims, it is my opinion that the
appellant's specification fails to adequately disclose what structure corresponds to the
claimed "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." In fact, the appellant points
out (brief, p. 11) that the structure corresponding to this means is set forth not in this
application but in another application (i.e., Application No. 09/276,666 referenced on
page 6 of the present application). However, for the reasons which follow, I conclude
that, according to Atmel Corporation v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d
1374, 53 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999), that description in the other application is not
available to comply with the specific requirement of paragraph six of 35 U.S.C. § 112
that the corresponding structure be described in the specification. Since no
corresponding structure is set forth in the specification, claims 1 to 20 fail to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the
invention.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007