Appeal No. 2006-0696
Application 90/005,546
by the same computer. Instead, the examiner argued for a broader interpretation without regard
to any corresponding structure (Answer at 28). This is legal error. As another example, in the
Examiner’s Answer regarding the anticipation of claim 19 by Lindsey, with respect to the “means
for altering a sequence of process steps in response to progress information and in response to
information from an operator,” the examiner does not explain how she is interpreting the means-
plus-function language. She merely quotes the claim language and directs the reader’s attention
to several pages of the Lindsey reference as allegedly meeting the claim limitation. (Answer
at 20, lines 1-3).
The examiner failed to adequately construe the claim language not only with respect to
those claims with means-plus-function limitations, but also with respect to claims without
means-plus-function limitations. For example, the examiner finally rejected independent claim
49 as being anticipated by Lindsey. The rejection of claim 49 is discussed in conjunction with
dependent claim 23. Dependent claim 23 depends from claim 21. Claim 21 depends from claim
19. Claims 19 and 21 are replete with the word “means.” Claim 49 does not contain the word
“means.” Thus, claim 49 appears to be much broader in scope than claim 23. Yet, the
examiner’s comparison of Lindsey’s teaching to the subject matter of claim 49 refers to language
predominately appearing in claim 23. (Answer at 20-21). The examiner quotes language
presumably taken from claim 23 and directs the reader’s attention to various pages in the Lindsey
reference. But claim 49 and claim 23 differ in language and scope, and it is not apparent from
the claim language itself that a rejection of claim 49 would necessarily apply to claim 23 and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007