Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
The appealed claims stand finally rejected on the
following
grounds:
(1) Claims 26 to 28, unpatentable for failure to comply with
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph;
(2) Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 26 and 29, anticipated by Miilu,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
(3) Claim 26, anticipated by Douglas, under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b);
(4) Claims 1 to 4, 8 to 14, 25, 26 and 29, unpatentable over
Nolte in view of Wydler, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d
1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997), quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16
F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994):
[a]lthough paragraph six [of 35 U.S.C. § 112]
statutorily provides that one may use means-plus
function language in a claim, one is still
subject to the requirement that a claim
“particularly point out and distinctly claim”
the invention. Therefore, if one employs
means-plus-function language in a claim, one
must set forth in the specification an adequate
disclosure showing what is meant by that language.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007