Appeal 2006-1217
Application 10/781,272
set forth in 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(v)(2004) and (2) whether the structures
disclosed in the specification are clearly defined and linked to the claimed
means-plus-function limitations in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.1
This Remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)
(effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286
Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)) is made for further
consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2) applies if
a Supplemental Examiner's Answer is written in response to this remand by
the Board. If the Examiner enters any new ground of rejection in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, the Appellants may choose one of the
two options provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b)(2004) within two months
from the date of the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer to “avoid sua sponte
dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the new ground of
rejection.”
REMANDED
1 A quick glance of the specification reveals that the claimed means for
orienting is defined inconsistently (Spec. at 9) and that the claimed means
for aligning is not expressly linked to any structure in the specification
(Spec. at 4-14).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007