Appeal 2007-1106
Application 10/965,055
1 corresponding structure to the receiving means.9 We note that all three
2 figures show a U-shaped housing that wraps around a protrusion on the
3 docking structure shown in Figure 3. We further note, however, that HP's
4 specification contemplates other geometries, including an L-shape, an arc, a
5 W-shape, or any other shape with a recess 104 for receiving the docking
6 station.
7 Our claim construction for the contested receiving means is
8 constrained by 35 U.S.C. 112(6), which limits the breadth of the receiving
9 means to the corresponding structure in the disclosure (and equivalents). As
10 is too often the case with means-plus-function limitations, neither the
11 applicant nor the examiner has provided much guidance on the scope of the
12 corresponding structures and equivalents. The receiving means is not
13 limited to the U-shape shown in HP's figures, but it does require a shape
14 with a recess into which some portion of the docking station fits during
15 docking. While Us, Ls, Ws, and arcs are specifically disclosed, other
16 recessed shapes (As, Bs, Cs, etc.) would be equivalent.
17 Shin on its face does not anticipate a properly construed claim 22. In
18 Shin, the recess is in the docking station, not the battery housing. Although
19 the examiner elsewhere characterizes the housing as having an L-shape,10
20 even if true the L-shape is formed to receive the computer, not the docking
21 station. Since Shin does not teach a limitation of the claim, the anticipation
22 rejection of claim 22 is reversed.
9 Appeal Br. 6.
10 Answer 6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013