Appeal No. 2001-2689
Application No. 09/215,021
appellant’s express statement that “newly added Claim 12 is not
entitled to any range of equivalents under the doctrine of
equivalents, including after arising equivalents” (main brief,
page 8).
Based on the file history of the present reissue
application, we simply cannot accept the examiner’s argument that
the literal scope of reissue claims on appeal here could
potentially be expanded to cover after arising equivalents under
the doctrine of equivalents. This constitutes an additional
reason necessitating reversal of the standing rejection.
Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of
the following matters.
Patent claim 1 is directed to a machine comprising “roll
forming means,” “shear means,” “crimping means,” “panel curvature
measuring means” and “automatic digital control means,” all for
performing stated functions. These “means” limitations invoke
the strictures of the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. As
such, each “means” limitation is limited to the “corresponding
structure” disclosed in the specification for accomplishing the
claimed function and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson Co.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007