Appeal No. 1998-2512 Page 4
Application No. 08/618,593
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
It is the examiner’s position that all of the claims are
indefinite because “storage drum means” (claim 1), “second
control means” (claim 14), and “drum gear means” and “idler
gear means” (claim 25) are not in proper means-plus-function
format. The appellants argue that these “means” terms are not
intended to define elements presented in means-plus-function
format, and therefore need not be accompanied by a recitation
of the functions they perform. We agree. This manner of
defining the elements in a claim is entirely proper and is
distinct from the means-plus-function format. See Section 2181
of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (Seventh Edition,
July 1998).
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007