Appeal 2006-2465
Application 10/266,052
must be interpreted as the corresponding structures described in the
specification or equivalents thereof, the Examiner and the Appellants must
indicate what structures in the specification, if any, correspond to the above
means-plus-function limitations, and what prior art structures, if any, are
equivalent to the above means-plus-function limitations.
Implicit in these requirements is that both the Examiner and the
Appellants must indicate whether the “corresponding” structures in the
specification are described in a manner that would satisfy the definiteness
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Therefore, pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(d)(1) (2004), we order the
Appellants to file a Supplemental Paper to explain whether or not the
claimed means-plus-function limitations invoke §112, paragraph 6, and if
invoked, specify what the structures in the specification are encompassed by
the means-plus-function limitations. The Appellants shall specify a portion
of the specification relied upon to show the structures corresponding to the
claimed means-plus-function limitations and shall explain why the structures
relied upon are considered “corresponding” within the meaning of B. Braun
Med., Inc., supra and Atmel Corp., supra.
Upon receiving the Appellants’ Supplemental Paper (if submitted),
the Examiner is to determine whether the claimed means-plus-function
limitations invoke §112, paragraph 6, and if invoked, what structures, if any,
in the Specification correspond to the claimed means-plus-function
limitations. This evaluation necessarily requires the Examiner to determine
whether the claim language and the corresponding structures described in
the specification are in compliance with the definiteness requirement of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007