Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 The first step in construing a “means-plus-function” limitation is to
2 determine the function of the limitation. The second step is to determine the
3 corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents
4 thereof. Structure is “corresponding structure” only if the specification or
5 prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
6 recited in the claim. Medtronic Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc.,
7 248 F.3d 1303, 1311, 58 USPQ2d 1607, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
8 Claims are not read in a vacuum but rather must be read in the light of
9 the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550
10 (CCPA 1969).
11 Nothing in the rules or in jurisprudence requires the fact finder to
12 credit unsupported or conclusory assertions. Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech
13 Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
14 E. ANALYSIS
15 1. Claims 1-6, 10, and 15-19
16 The Examiner finds that Kolosov does not teach that the disclosed
17 high throughput method screens lubricants for oxidation stability by either
18 determining the time required for a lubricant sample to consume a
19 predetermined amount of oxygen or measuring the amount of deposits
20 formed by a lubricant sample exposed to oxidation reaction conditions.
21 Final Office Action mailed November 4, 2005 at 8; Answer at 7.
22 The Examiner finds that O’Rear teaches that the oxidation stability of
23 a lubricant oil sample can be determined by exposing the sample to an
24 oxidative atmosphere and determining the time required for the sample to
25 absorb one liter of oxygen. The Examiner finds that Gatto teaches a method
26 for determining the oxidation stability of a lubricant oil composition by
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013