Appeal No. 97-4252 Page 6
Application No. 08/226,520
discrete positions of the luminous devices within a swing arc
is an issue under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Thus, the remaining issue is whether the claims under
appeal are indefinite for being unclear as to what specific
structure comprises the lighting control means. As to this
issue, the appellant has not contested the examiner's
determination. Accordingly, we are constrained to sustain the
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the appellant has
not pointed out how the examiner erred in rejecting the claims
under appeal.
Moreover, we note that the court in In re Donaldson, 16
F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) agreed
with the general principle espoused in In re Lundberg, 244
F.2d 543, 547-48, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957), that the
sixth paragraph of section 112 does not exempt an applicant
from the requirements of the first two paragraphs of that
section. Although paragraph six statutorily provides that one
may use means-plus-function language in a claim, one is still
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007