Appeal 2007-1719
Application 10/655,483
Each of the independent claims further requires a link (or supporting means).
For example, claim 1 recites that “the divider is supported by the cutting platform
via a link,” claim 9 recites the step of “supporting the crop divider at the cutting
platform via a link secured at one end to the platform and at its other end to the
crop divider,” and claim 16 recites “means for supporting the divider at the cutting
platform.”
The Examiner found that Greiner discloses the claimed link (claim 1) and
supporting means (claim 16) (Answer 4). In particular, the Examiner found that
Greiner’s bracket (34) and flange (30) arrangement satisfies the claimed link and
supporting means (Id.). The Examiner further found that in view of the structure
disclosed in Greiner, the method of operating the device, as recited in claim 9,
would have been obvious since it is the normal and logical manner in which the
device is used (Answer 5). We disagree with the Examiner’s findings.
First, the language of claim 16 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, but
the Examiner failed to provide any interpretation of the means-plus-function
limitations of claim 16 in the patentability analysis. See In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d
1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that “paragraph six
applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function
language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or
as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court.”). The court in
Donaldson stated:
The plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six is
that one construing means-plus-function language in a
claim must look to the specification and interpret that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013