Appeal No. 2005-0894
Application No. 09/949,736
alia, the following rejection:
Claims 19-33, 37, 40, and 42-44 [sic, stand] rejected
under 35 U.S.C.[§]102(b). This rejection is set forth
in prior Office Action, Paper No. 6.
According to the above-mentioned prior Office Action, Gartner2
teaches each and every element of the subject matter recited in
claims 19-33, 37, 40 and 42-44.
Any initial inquiry into the propriety of the examiner’s
Section 102 rejection requires the determination of the scope of
the claimed subject matter. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, we give the
terms in the claims on appeal the broadest reasonable meaning
consistent with the appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When
the terms in the claims are written in a “means-plus-function”
format, however, we interpret them as being limited to the
corresponding structure described in the specification and
equivalents thereof in accordance with the requirements of
Section 112, paragraph sixth. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in banc). As stated
2U.S. Patent 5,254,832 issued to Gartner et al on October
19, 1993.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007