Appeal No. 2002-1300
Application 09/481,422
page 3]. Appellants argue that the compensation means of
claim 17 is recited in means-plus-function form. They argue that
the disclosed structure corresponding to the compensation means
is limited to compensation values that are defined by the servo
loop’s transfer function. Appellants argue that Witt does not
determine the transfer function of his servo loop and does not
use the servo loop’s transfer function to generate the
compensation values. According to appellants, Witt does not
disclose the claimed compensation means nor an equivalent to the
claimed compensation means [brief, pages 4-7]. The examiner
responds that the compensation means of Witt performs the same
function as the claimed compensation means and the artisan would
instantly recognize that the claimed compensation means and the
prior art compensation means are equivalent for the function of
compensating for repeatable run-out [answer, pages 3-6].
Appellants respond that in order for the examiner to find an
equivalent, the examiner must find that the prior art element
performs the specific function in the claim in substantially the
same way and produces substantially the same result. Appellants
argue that the compensation means of Witt does not perform
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007