Appeal No. 1997-3909
Application 08/430,090
29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994), requiring proper credit
for the “means-plus-function” claim language. Appellant
complains that the Examiner has not identified an equivalent
structure in at least one of the applied references which
performs an identical function. Also, Appellant contends “In
particular, the Examiner’s Answer has never identified the
structural changes necessary to convert the alleged prior art
apparatus in accordance with the teachings [o]f the Yabuuchi
reference so as to arrive at the invention of claim 10.”
(Reply brief-page 11.)
We note that Appellant has not identified any
corresponding structure in his own specification. We are also
hard pressed to find any structure in the labeled boxes of
Appellant’s Figure 1 or the flow chart of Figure 2. Without
further guidance, the claimed “means-plus-function” structure
appears to be more function than structure. And, in that
vain, Yabuuchi clearly recites the function of multi-speed
voice annotation (indicated by the Examiner in Figure 12).
Appellant contends that the Examiner has used
impermissible hindsight reconstruction and has proffered no
references evidencing the “universally recognized” advantages.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007