Appeal No. 2004-0618
Application No. 10/021,790
of argument by discussing the reflector system illustrated in
Figures 16 through 18 and 21 through 23 of their application and
urging that
[t]he invention uses no electronics of any kind.
Specifically, it uses no light, video cameras, or
electrical connections. The purely mechanical nature
of the invention is one of its greatest strengths,
given the difficult environment in which it functions.
The PTO has not made a prima facie showing that
the elements disclosed in Kirschke render the reflector
system shown in the present invention obvious. If
anything, Kirschke’s use of complex electronics teaches
away from the present invention [brief, pages 8 and 9].
The examiner, on the other hand, considers the “reflective
means” limitation in claim 6 to be met by Kirschke’s metal ruler
40 and ruler slide 41 (see pages 3 through 6 in the answer).
The claim language at issue is in means-plus-function format
and hence must be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, to cover the corresponding structure, material, or
acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
King Instrument Corp. v. Perego, 65 F.3d 941, 945-46, 36 USPQ2d
1129, 1131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1995). For a means-plus-function
limitation to read on a device, the device must employ means
identical or equivalent to the corresponding structures,
materials, or acts described in the specification and must also
perform the identical function as specified in the limitation.
Id.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007