Appeal No. 2001-1487
Application No. 08/970,824
Chen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Nov. 8, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed Aug. 9, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed Jan. 11, 2001) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that claims 1-17 do not stand or fall together. (See brief at
page 10.) Therefore, we will address the claims as separately argued in the brief.
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation of the recited claimed invention because
the examiner has not performed the requisite claim interpretation of the recited
limitations in “means-plus-function” format. (See brief at pages 11-12.) Appellants
argue that the examiner has not performed the requisite analysis under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph to properly construe the recited limitations in “means-plus-
function” format. (See brief at pages 13-14.) Appellants argue that the vectors and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007