Appeal No. 1997-3694
Application No. 08/277,013
The examiner relies on the following admitted prior art (see Answer, page 2):
Applicant’s admitted prior art, page 1, line 8 to page 7, line 9, and prior art figures 9, 10, 11(a), and
11(b).
Claims 1, 4, and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the admitted prior art.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 12) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16) for
a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and the Reply Brief (Paper No.
17) for appellant’s position.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Appellant states that the claims should not be presumed to stand or fall together (Brief, page
11), and presents arguments for each claim. Accordingly, each claim on appeal stands or falls
separately. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
The Rejection
The examiner, on page 3 of the Answer, relates claim limitations to structures disclosed in
appellant’s admitted prior art portion of the specification. The examiner contends that prior art
structures comprise the “equivalent” of elements recited in the instant claims.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the claims are drafted in “means plus function” format, and
should be construed “to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007