The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ROBERT J. KOFFRON and ROSS A. JACOBS
________________
Appeal 2006-1217
Application 10/781,272
Technology Center 1700
________________
Decided: September 27, 2006
________________
Before GARRIS, PAK, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER
This case is not ripe for review and is, therefore, remanded to the
Examiner for appropriate action.
Any initial inquiry into the propriety of the Examiner’s prior art
rejections requires the determination of the scope of the claimed subject
matter. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). We observe that independent claims 1, 14, and 30 on appeal
recite a vortex inhibitor having, inter alia, mechanical elements defined by
means-plus-function limitations. Claims 1 and 30 recite “a means for
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007