Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
find nowhere in the record, including the Request for Rehearing, that the examiner has
done the required analysis or made a finding that the structure or acts disclosed by
Kashigi in Figure 5 is an equivalent to the:
multiple-screen construction means for storing image data, . . . , in said
image memory in an arrangement capable of constructing multiple
screens.
Since the examiner has not addressed the sole limitation in dispute in the manner
consistent with the required procedures set forth by the Office at the time of the
decision and at the time of the mailing of the Request for Rehearing, I would remand
the application to the examiner to make the specific findings needed so that we, the
Board, may review the prima facie case.
Additionally, the examiner’s response (Paper No. 22), mailed Sep. 5, 2001, to
appellant’s Supplemental Reply (Paper No. 21), filed Aug. 9, 2001, merely states that
the paper has been considered and entered. From our review of appellant’s reply, we
note that appellant argues that “the passages relied on by the Examiner say nothing of
substance, in any respect (notwithstanding the Examiner’s discourse bridging
pages 8-10 of the Rehearing Request) regarding how image data is stored in a
particular arrangement so that it would facilitate the construction of multiple screens, as
amply described in the specification of the present invention.” (See Supplemental
Reply at page 4.) The main limitations in independent claim 1 at issue are drafted in
means-plus-function format (multiple-screen construction means and image signal
output means). While the examiner has generally identified the corresponding
-12-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007