Ex parte ANDERSON - Page 9

          Appeal No. 96-2372                                                          
          Application 08/278,676                                                      

          claim 11, lines 2-6 as being some form of software, we are at               
          a complete loss to understand what might constitute the "means              
          for providing further corresponding areas . . ." set forth in               
          lines 7-9 of claim 11.  In that same vein, we are at a loss to              
          clearly understand the recitation in some of the appealed claims            
          (e.g., claims 3, 12, 13 and 14) that the apparatus "is arranged             
          for . . ." performing some function.  As an example, exactly how            
          is the apparatus "arranged for establishing corresponding areas             
          associated with options in the menu before displaying the options           
          on the viewscreen," as set forth in claim 13 on appeal?  In                 
          considering these kinds of issues the examiner's attention is               
          directed to Sections 2106-2106.02 and 2185 of the Manual of                 
          Patent Examining Procedure (Rev. 2, July 1996).                             

                    Further points to be considered by the examiner                   
          regarding issues under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, relate            
          to exactly what constitutes "a substantially circular band" as              
          required in claim 3 on appeal and what constitutes a curved band            
          shape that is "substantially smaller than 360E" as set forth in             
          claims 19 and 22 on appeal.                                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007