Appeal No. 1998-1181
Application No. 08/442,883
Similarly, for claim 46 we find that the third
subparagraph recital of "automatically selecting the cellular
carrier corresponding to the detected SID matching any home
SID of the plurality of home SIDs" invokes Section 112,
paragraph 6, as it recites only an underlying "selecting"
function without recital of the acts which provide this
function. See In re Roberts, 470 F.2d 1399, 1402, 176 USPQ
313, 315 (CCPA 1973) and Ex parte Zimmerley, 153 USPQ 367, 369
(BPAI 1966) cited in O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576,
1581, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In view of Appellants' argument directed to the third
subparagraphs of claims 46 and 55 we shall address those claim
limitations. The specific function associated with the means
limitation of claim 55 and the absent act limitation of claim
46 is "automatically selecting a cellular carrier
corresponding to a detected SID matching any home SID of the
plurality of home SIDs".
The only structure disclosed for implementing the
aforesaid function of the "means” are the control system (24)
and memory (26) operated with a program having the flowcharts
of figures 3-5 to carry out the specified function. The
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007