Appeal 2007-1259
Application 10/054,213
starvation disclosed by Wilkinson are equivalent to the means for impressing
a positive voltage pulse on the anode set forth in the Stimming Specification.
The Examiner notes that Wilkinson and Stimming are addressing the same
problem and achieve the same results using the same structures (Ans. At 7).
In response, Stimming does not point out where it believes the
Examiner’s analysis under 35 USC §112, ¶6 to be faulty. Instead, Stimming
first acknowledges that “the fuel starvation at the anode disclosed by
Wilkinson causes the anode potential to be raised”, but then states that “the
step of causing fuel starvation can not be considered to read on ‘impressing a
positive voltage pulse on the pulse on the anode’, as recited [in the]
independent claims.” (Br. 5; See also Reply Br. at 2). We do not find
Stimming’s statements to be persuasive as Stimming does not provide any
reason or supporting evidence that would contradict the Examiner’s
construction of claim 1. For instance, Stimming does not point to an explicit
definition in its Specification that would exclude the Wilkinson means nor
does Stimming explain why the means of Wilkinson would not be equivalent
to those the Stimming Specification recites.
Apparently Stimming would have us limit the “means for impressing
a positive voltage pulse on the anode”of claim 1 to one of the means
disclosed in its Specification, i.e., “applying an externally generated voltage
or applying the voltage of the cathode to the anode…” (Reply Br. 1-2).
However, Stimming does not explain why its claims should be limited to
any one of or even all of the means recited in its Specification. Without an
explicit statement to the contrary, the language Stimming chose to use in its
claim 1, i.e., “means for impressing a positive voltage pulse on the anode”,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013