Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
and performs the same functions as the preprocessor as claimed, and as such
anticipates the claimed limitations.” (See answer at page 7.) We do not find that the
examiner has shown that the functions are carried out in the same manner as recited in
the language of independent claim 1. Moreover, in light of appellant’s use of “means
plus function” limitations, the examiner has not performed the required analysis for
these limitations using the In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir.
1994) analysis of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. (See MPEP
§ 2181.)
Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claim 5. With respect to independent claim 2, as discussed above, we find no express
disclosure of structure or steps to carry out the recited functions, and we do not find that
these functions would necessarily be inherent in the disclosure of Girod. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation, and we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 2 and dependent claim 8.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007