Appeal No. 1999-0752
Application No. 08/806,103
The examiner has not proffered any evidence or scientific
reasoning to demonstrate that undue experimentation is needed to
practice the claimed subject matter. See the Answer in its
entirety. The examiner simply ignores the above-mentioned
guidance in the specification, the state of the art (known
information not in the specification) and the nature of the
invention involved. Id. Indeed, the examiner’s analysis does
not apply the standard set forth in Forman. Id.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 3, 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 15 and 17 through
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
As a final point, we note that the fluid treatment devices
claimed in this application and U.S. Patent No. 5,512,335 are
defined by “means-plus-function” terms. When the claim terms are
expressed in “means-plus-function,” they are interpreted as being
limited to the corresponding structure described in the
specification or the equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson Co.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en
banc). It follows that “means-plus-function” terms, which may be
written differently, can be interpreted as being limited to the
same structures if the structures corresponding to the means-
plus-function terms are identical. Our cursory review of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007