Appeal No. 1996-0938
Application No. 07/642,417
Appellant argues inter alia that the claims on appeal
recite either a combination of steps (Brief, page 13), or two
means (Brief, page 18). We agree with the appellant’s
argument that the claims on appeal are not single means
claims. Each of the apparatus claims includes a means for
changing at least one of the characteristic parameters of the
noted field, and a means for making the change within a
specified time interval. Each of the method claims includes
two steps that perform the functions of the two means.
In summary, the examiner has not presented a sound basis
for rejecting the claims under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112 . 1
1In In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197
(Fed. Cir. 1983), the Court intimated that a single means
claim should be rejected under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, and not the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007