Appeal No. 2003-1920
Application No. 09/538,455
agree with the examiner that Higdon anticipates the subject
matter of claims 9 through 12 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
We decline to decide the merits of the examiner’s Section
102(e) rejection of claim 25 as anticipated by Higdon.5 The
examiner fails to properly interpret the means-plus-function
limitations recited in claim 25 consistent with In re Donalson,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in
banc). In other words, the examiner has not properly interpreted
the claimed means-plus-function limitations as the corresponding
structures described in the specification and the equivalents
thereof. As a result of this misinterpretation, the examiner has
not properly considered the disclosure of Higdon. Accordingly,
we remand this application to the examiner to consult the
specification to define the structures corresponding to the
claimed means-plus-function limitations and the equivalents
thereof and to determine the applicability of the teachings of
Higdon based on this proper construction.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13
through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
5 According to the appellants (Brief, page 10), “[c]laim 25
stands or falls alone.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007