Appeal No. 2001-2689
Application No. 09/215,021
(1) The examiner should make specific findings as to what
constitutes the “corresponding structure” disclosed in the
specification for accomplishing the claimed function for each of
the means-plus-function limitations appearing in original patent
claim 1.5
(2) Based on the findings made in (1), the examiner should
compare the reissue claims to the original patent claims for the
purpose of determining whether the reissue claims are broader
than the patent claims in any respect, including (a) whether any
element required by the various “means” limitations of patent
claim 1 is not recited in reissue claim 12, and (b) whether the
absence of the word “automatic” in paragraph (e) of reissue claim
12 has the effect of broadening claim 12 relative to patent claim
1 with respect to the digital controller limitation.
(3) The examiner should take whatever action is deemed
appropriate as a result of (1) and (2) above.
5We appreciate that with respect to the “roll forming means”
and the “shear means” limitations of original claim 1 this task
may be complicated by the fact that roll forming machine 38 and
shear 40 are only described in the specification (column 4, lines
38-51) as being machines known in the prior art, and are only
illustrated schematically in the drawing figures.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007