Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
We note that, at page 10 of the principal brief and in
the reply brief, at pages 5-6, appellant cites In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) for the
proposition that claims must be construed, in accordance with
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, to cover the corresponding
disclosed structure and equivalents thereof. Taking this
together with the examiner’s statement, at page 8 of the
answer, that Franke’s device and appellant’s device “are
structurally quite different,” appellant contends that a
rejection of claims 24 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103, based
on Franke, is improper. As appellant apparently recognizes,
however, since appellant does not argue claims 27, 28 and 32
on this ground with any specifity. Donaldson construed the
language of the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 only with
respect to so-called “means-plus-function” language in claims.
Instant claims 27, 28 and 32 are directed to methods wherein
various steps of the methods are recited but there is no
“means-plus-function” language in these claims nor has
appellant explained how there is even any “step-plus-function”
language in the claims. See O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115
F.3d 1576, 1583, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007