Appeal 2007-0630
Application 10/643,597
directed to any such amended Brief submitted if the rejections are to be
maintained.
The Supplemental or Substitute Answer can be used to further explain
the rejection of record in terms of the specific structures described in the
Specification allegedly corresponding to the claimed means-plus-function
limitations or equivalents thereof. The Examiner is reminded that the
structures taught or suggested in the prior art reference are considered
“equivalents thereof” if they, relative to the corresponding structures,
1) perform substantially the same function in substantially the same
way to produce substantially the same result, Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.
Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
2) have insubstantial differences, Valmount Indus., Inc. v. Reinke
Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042-44, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1453-56 (Fed. Cir.
1993);
3) are structurally equivalent, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833,
15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and
4) would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as
interchangeable, Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316,
50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
If the Specification fails to adequately describe the structures
corresponding to the claimed means-plus-function limitations in a manner
such that that one skilled in the art would know and understand what
structures correspond to the claimed means-plus-function limitations, the
Examiner must set forth a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and reopen the prosecution of this application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013