Appeal No. 2001-1786
Application 08/420,796
broadened beyond the actual language of the claim. The structure
necessary to support the functions of appealed claim 28 is not
the same as the structure necessary to support the function of
patent claim 1. Note that the Eisele patent discloses that
processor means 2 serves to transmit data between processor 2 and
the data processing equipment [column 4, lines 51-54]. The
patent also discloses that a particular feature of processing
means 2 is that it can also be used for verification, encryption
and decryption [id., lines 55-59]. Thus, the processing means of
patent claim 1 is not required to have the additional structure
of appealed claim 28 for performing the security related
functions. Therefore, it was improper for the examiner to
consider the means of patent claim 1 to be exactly the same as
the means of appealed claim 28.
Independent claim 47 is also recited in “means-plus-
function” form in which the functions of claim 47 are not the
same as the functions recited in the claims of the patent.
Therefore, the examiner has improperly determined the scope of
claim 47 and the claims of the patent for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 28.
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007