Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 18
Application No. 09/314,267
means.9 Unlike the situation in Atmel, wherein the inclusion of the title of the
referenced article may have been sufficient alone to indicate to one skilled in the art the
precise structure of the means recited in the claim10, the appellant's specification
contains no language which would be sufficient, alone, to indicate to one skilled in the
art the precise structure of the "means for connecting the torsion elements so that the
torsional load on one of the torsion elements is transmitted to one or more of the other
of the torsion elements to which said one of the torsion elements is connected" recited
in the claims.
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
9 I see nothing in the Atmel opinion which indicates that the determination that the Dickson article
referred to in the specification at issue therein "may not take the place of structure that does not appear in
the specification" (Id., 198 F.3d at 1382, 53 USPQ2d at 1231) turned on whether the article was
incorporated in compliance with the standards of the MPEP.
10 The Federal Circuit remanded the Atmel case back to the district court for consideration of this
issue. Id., 198 F.3d at 1382, 53 USPQ2d at 1231.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007