Appeal No. 2002-2027 Page 4
Application No. 09/209,304
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 8
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Robbins et
al discloses a voice coil motor driving means that based on a comparison between an
actual (measured) velocity and a demand (command/target/requested) velocity (see
col. 3, lines 21-41 of Robbins et al) for controlling the voice coil motor driving."
(Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellant argues, "[t]he Examiner has not shown how
the applied references [sic] disclose equivalents of the structure described in the
present application, namely means for limiting the amount of roll motion of the slider."
(Appeal Br. at 6.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . .
for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (2002). However, "limitations are not to be read into the claims. . . ."
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007