Appeal No. 2005-1234 Page 4
Application No. 09/749,752
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by either Zeleny, Noblett or Perttunen. After careful review of
the record and consideration of the issues before us, we reverse all of the
rejections of record.
DISCUSSION
The issue before us turns on the construction of the claims on appeal.
Both the examiner and appellants agree, and we do not disagree, that the claims
are written as “means-plus-function.” The construction of the claims is thus
governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph; therefore, in construing the claim,
we must “look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents
thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re
Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en
banc).
Focusing first on independent claims 8 and 11, the portion of the claims
that we find to be dispositive of the issues on appeal is the construction of the
phrase “means for obtaining information concerning the positions of the probes to
which the target substance has bound and simultaneously detecting the
management information attached to the test piece.”
The examiner interprets the structure for a means for obtaining information
concerning the positions of the probes to which the target substance has bound
and simultaneously detecting the management information attached to the test
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007