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. 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013