Appeal 2007-0630
Application 10/643,597
Appellant has not done so. For example, Appellant refers to page 4, lines
15-21 of the Specification for claim 13 and page 4, lines 22-31 of the
Specification for claim 14 (Br. 8). However, those referred to passages in
the Specification do not define structure corresponding to the claimed means
plus function limitations. Nor has Appellant clearly specified every
corresponding structure that may be disclosed in the Specification and linked
the functions of any such structures to each respective means-plus-function
limitation recited in the appealed claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(d)(2004) states that:
If a brief is filed which does not comply with all the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, appellant will be
notified of the reasons for non-compliance and given a time
period within which to file an amended brief. If appellant does
not file an amended brief within the set time period, or files an
amended brief which does not overcome all the reasons for non-
compliance stated in the notification, the appeal will stand
dismissed.
Thus, upon return of this application, the Examiner must notify
Appellant of the above deficiency in the Brief and require the Appellant to
submit an amended Brief to correct it within an appropriate time period.
Upon receiving the amended Brief, the Examiner must review the Brief to
determine (1) whether it meets the requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(v)(2004) and (2) whether the structures disclosed in the
Specification are clearly defined and linked to the claimed means-plus-
function limitations in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Also, the Examiner should submit a Substitute or Supplemental Answer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013