Appeal No. 2001-1487
Application No. 08/970,824
matrices in Levine are part of the computation process, while in the present application,
the vectors and the matrices represent the end product of the computation. (See brief
at page 15.) We agree with appellants that the examiner’s treatment of claims 1-5 does
not explicitly address or identify the structure, acts or materials that correspond to the
recited “means.”
The examiner maintains that appellants misread the references and that the
evidence as to where each limitation of the claim is found in the reference is in the
rejection. (See answer at pages 7-8.) The examiner maintains that “each of the
applied references were [sic] interpreted in conjunction to the descriptions provided by
the appellants on pages 1-5 of the specification.” (See answer at page 8.) While we
agree with the examiner that citations to the references are present in the statement of
the rejection, appellants’ argument is that the cited disclosures are not the same as the
recited “MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION” limitations when properly interpreted in light of the
structure, acts or materials that correspond to the recited “means.” Additionally, the
examiner maintains that a vector means is not recited in the language of independent
claims 1 and 5. We agree with the examiner, but the parameter means and the matrix
means are recited in the claims. We find that the examiner has not performed the
requisite factual findings concerning these claim limitations beyond an erroneous
statement concerning the matrix means being notoriously well known. (See answer at
page 9.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007