Appeal No. 2002-0098
Application No. 09/064,290
method for implementing the invention may not be described in the disclosure, there
has been no showing that the artisan would not be able to fill in the gaps using
knowledge common in the art. For example, it is not necessary that any particular
wireless link or electrical connection be described (cf. Answer at 3) if the artisan is led
to infer that wireless links or electrical connections in existence at the time of invention
may be utilized.
To the extent the rejection of claims 1-14 and 16 may be based on an alleged
lack of disclosed structures corresponding to the “means plus function” elements of the
claims, we note that the issue of lack of corresponding structure is a consideration
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rather than the first paragraph of the statute.
See, e.g., Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 53
USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 42 USPQ2d 1881 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). A rejection based on alleged lack of disclosed structures corresponding to
“means plus function” claim elements, drafted as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, is thus not before us.
In any event, corresponding structure may be inferred from functions set out in
the claims. See Dossel at 946-47, 42 USPQ2d at 1885 (determining that a unit which
receives digital data, performs complex mathematical computations and outputs the
results to a display must be implemented by or on a general or special purpose
computer). The instant disclosure describes how electronic value may be stored in
memory devices contained in an EPD (e.g., spec. at 5, ll. 16-27). Further, the
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007