Ex parte WILLIAM E. SHULTZ - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-3702                                                          
          Application 08/208,688                                                      


               Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as            
          lacking statutory basis for reissue.  According to the examiner,            
               [t]he statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251 does not                
               authorize reissue of a patent unless the patent is                     
               deemed wholly or partially inoperative or invalid due                  
               to errors without deceptive intent.  In this case, the                 
               patent is not deemed wholly or partially invalid or                    
               inoperative due to such errors because, based on the                   
               facts of record, claiming an “adjusting means”                         
               [appealed claim 14] or a “mandrel spreader” [appealed                  
               claim 21] has the same effect and/or scope as claiming                 
               a “tapered adjusting means” [patent claim 14],                         
               therefore there is no error.  The courts have                          
               determined in In re Donaldson, 29 USPQ 2d 1845, 1850                   
               (Fed Cir. 1994) that a means-plus-function limitation,                 
               under 35 U.S.C. §112 6th paragraph, is limited to                      
               corresponding structure, material or acts described in                 
               the specification and equivalents thereof.  In this                    
               case, the tapered adjusting means, as patented,                        
               corresponds to the inverted truncated cone 58 as shown                 
               in figure 5 and described in the specification (column                 
               6, lines 40 et seq.).  This “adjusting means” has only                 
               been disclosed in the specification as such an inverted                
               truncated cone 58, which can only be described as being                
               “tapered” in shape.  An adjusting means that does not                  
               have a tapered surface, as described by Applicant in                   
               the re-issue declaration, is not considered an art                     
               recognized, or structural, equivalent.  Thus, a                        
               “tapered adjusting means” or an “adjusting means” or a                 
               “mandrel spreader”, in light of Donaldson and                          
               Applicant’s specification, have the same scope.                        
               Therefore, there is no error which would justify                       
               reissue [answer, Paper No. 17, pages 4 and 5].                         
               Claim 21 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second            
          paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point            
          out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant             
          regards as the invention.  Here, the examiner contends that “[i]n           

                                          4                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007