Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting:
I DISSENT from the majority's reversal of our original decision.
I find that the present record is not adequate to make an appropriate
determination on the Request for Rehearing by the examiner and the issues involved at
this time. I would REMAND the application to the examiner in response to the
Supplemental Reply to the Examiner’s Request for Rehearing filed Aug. 9, 2001 to
further consider Appellant’s arguments providing responses thereto and to make
specific findings with respect to the examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation:
multiple-screen construction means for storing image data, which has
been provided by a designated storage medium or image signal
generating source and converted by one of said plurality of said image
signal processing means, or reduced image data reduced by said image
reduction means, in said image memory in an arrangement capable of
constructing multiple screens.
Specifically, has the examiner (1) interpreted the use of alternative claim language to
require only image data “reduced image data reduced by said image reduction means;”
(2) has the examiner made a determination that the appellant is or is not attempting to
invoke an interpretation of the “multiple-screen construction means” under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph; (3) if appellant has invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph by
reciting the limitation in "means plus function" format, is there an identity of function
being claimed or an equivalent, and to provide specific findings with regard to the
corresponding structure and acts disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2181
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007