Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Before considering the rejections based on the prior art,
we consider the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner
regarding the application of the 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph as interpreted in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant has
argued at length, [brief, pages 20 to 24 and reply brief,
pages 9 to 13], what Donaldson stands for and what the court
stated in that case. However, Appellant has not effectively
responded to Examiner’s position that “Appellant has not
provided reasons why prior art elements should not be
considered equivalents” [answer, pages 4 and 5]. We agree
with the Examiner and find that Appellant has not provided us
with any specific structure from the specification which is
equivalent to the claimed means plus function. Absent that,
we conclude that the Examiner is correct in giving the claimed
means plus function the interpretation employed in applying
the prior art in the rejections on appeal. Now, we consider
these rejections.
Rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9, 12 and 14 over Shen
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007