Appeal No. 96-1983
Application No. 08/222,784
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We are unable to find merit in any of the examiner’s
objections to claim 1. First, the phrase “said memory” in
line
4 of claim 1 cannot possibly be misinterpreted because there
is only one memory or memory means recited in the claim.
Second, typographical errors are not properly the subject of a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner can always
correct typographical errors at the time of allowance. Third,
the examiner’s objections regarding the functional language
and the structural connections do not make any sense.
Independent claim 1 clearly recites how the various components
(means) are interconnected, and the recitation of the
components as “means” allows the components to be claimed
according to the functions which are performed. Therefore, we
do not understand what the examiner finds unclear and
indefinite about the structural and functional recitations of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007