Appeal No. 96-3758
Application 08/252,832
requires a plurality of such local vehicle communication
stations.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-12 and
16-19 over prior art.
The rejection of claims 21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
In the examiner’s answer at 6, it is stated:
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 USC
112, second paragraph as being ambiguous. Claims
21 and 22 refer to methods claims while recites
"means for". A claim cannot recite both statutory
classes, a method and an apparatus. See Ex parte
Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. PA&I. 1990).
In response to the rejection, the appellants amended claims
21 and 22 to eliminate all references to "means plus function"
language (Paper No. 15B). Without discussing the appellants’
response, the examiner maintained the original rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Since the examiner’s stated reasons for rejecting claims 21
and 22 have been eliminated, the rejection of claims 21 and 22
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007