Appeal 2007-0874
Application 10/130,255
what structure corresponds to the means limitation. Otherwise,
one does not know what the claim means.” [Emphasis added.]
However, the Appellants fail to comply with the above requirement.
of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(v).
Upon return of this application, the Examiner is to notify the
Appellants of the above deficiency in the Brief and require them to correct it
within an appropriate statutory time period. Once the Appellants submit a
corrected Brief in response to the Examiner’s notice of a defective Brief, the
Examiner must determine (1) the correctness and adequacy of the
Appellants’ description and explanation directed to the specific structures
corresponding to the claimed means-plus-function limitations and (2) the
propriety of the applicability of the rejection of record. If the rejection is to
be maintained, the Examiner may provide, if necessary, a Supplemental
Answer in response to the corrected Brief. The Supplemental Answer can
be used to further explain the rejection of record in terms of the specific
structures described in the Specification allegedly corresponding to the
claimed means-plus-function limitations or equivalents thereof. The
Examiner is reminded that the structures taught or suggested in the prior art
reference are considered “equivalents thereof” if they, relative to the
corresponding structures,
1) perform substantially the same function in substantially the same
way to produce substantially the same result, Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.
Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013