Appeal No. 2004-1421
Application No. 09/471,674
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8 through 13, 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
Looking first to the communication systems defined in
independent claims 5 and 10 on appeal, we note that claim 10 is
drafted in "means-plus-function" terms, and that while claim 5 is
drafted in structure-plus-function terminology, it is clear that
the claim defines the underlying function without recitation of
particular structure for achieving the specified function. Thus,
as we view the claims and appellants' arguments directed thereto,
claims 5 and 10 must each be interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, and the respective "means" and "data
transmission link" limitations therein must be construed to cover
the corresponding structure described in appellants'
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007