Appeal 2007-0874
Application 10/130,255
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 accordance
with Abbott Labs and Information Storage Devices Inc. discussed supra, 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.
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.
REMANDED
sld/ls
KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK
SUITE 710
900 17TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013