Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
i. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 13-16, 75, 79 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dempsey in view of Grot, Uchida
and/or Vanderborgh.
ii. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Dempsey in view of Grot, Uchida or Vanderborgh and further in
view of Tomantschger.
iii. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dempsey in view of Grot, Uchida or Vanderborgh
and further in view of LaConti.
iv. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Dempsey in view of Grot, Uchida or Vanderborgh and further in
view of Razaq.
(Examiner=s Answer, pages 3-7). Before addressing the merits of the individual
rejections, we first construe the claims.
A. Claim Construction
Atwood=s independent claim 1 contains Ameans for@ language.
Specifically, the claims require a Ameans for electrical measurement@ and a
Ameans . . . for exposing a surface of said counter electrode to water.@ A claim
limitation that employs the language Ameans ... for@ invokes a rebuttable
presumption that ' 112, &6 applies.1 CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288
F.3d 1359, 1369, 62 UPQ2d 1658, 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
135 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (2006) reads as follows:
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013