Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
step of converting the scene into analog and a "means for"
accomplishing each other step recited in the method.
Consequently, we agree with the examiner that the scope of
claims 28, 30, 33, and 37 is not enabled by the specification,
and we sustain the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.1
Claims 2, 6, 9, 43, and 44 were rejected as being
unpatentable over Tanaka. Claim 6 includes, in pertinent
part, "a means for capturing a single image of a scene" and "a
memory for storing the sequence of integers representing the
captured scene." As to the capturing means, appellant invokes
In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir.
1994), and analyzes the claim in accordance therewith. In2
other words, appellant specifically lists the elements
disclosed which correspond to the claimed means and indicates
that elements lacking counterparts in Tanaka include
microprocessor 15, sync separator 29, gate 31, D flip-flop 35,
We should note that the section of the MPEP referenced by appellant1
relates to restriction practice and not to the single means rejection.
Accordingly, that section does not control our decision concerning the single
means issue.
An analysis of means-plus-function elements according to In re2
Donaldson Co. will hereafter be referred to as a Donaldson analysis.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007