Ex Parte Satake et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-0879                                                                               
                Application 09/793,209                                                                         

                the “corresponding structure” in the Specification and “equivalents” thereof                   
                in a manner consistent with the requirements of 35 U. S. C. § 112, sixth                       
                paragraph, before applying the references thereto (Answer 4-6 and 8).                          
                      Accordingly, the Examiner is required to take appropriate action                         
                consistent with current examining practice and procedure to interpret the                      
                “means” limitations of appealed claims 15, 17, 18, and 22 through 25 by first                  
                determining the “corresponding structure” and “equivalents thereof” for the                    
                “function” in the limitation that is described in the Specification in a manner                
                consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.  § 112, sixth paragraph, and then                
                determine whether the corresponding structure or “equivalents” thereof is/are                  
                taught or suggested by the applied prior art, and to set forth the interpretations,            
                findings, and determinations in a supplemental examiner’s answer, with a view                  
                toward placing this Application in condition for decision on appeal with respect               
                to the issues presented.                                                                       
                      This Remand is made for the purpose of directing the Examiner to                         
                further consider the grounds of rejection.  Accordingly, if the Examiner                       
                submits a supplemental answer to the Board in response to this remand,                         
                “appellant must within two months from the date of the supplemental                            
                examiner’s answer exercise one of” the two options set forth in 37 C.F.R.                      
                § 41.50(a)(2) (2007), “in order to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as                 
                to the claims subject to the rejection for which the Board has remanded the                    
                proceeding,” as provided in this rule.                                                         
                      We hereby remand this Application to the Examiner, via the Office of                     
                a Director of the Technology Center, for appropriate action in view of the                     
                above comments.                                                                                


                                                      9                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013