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