Ex Parte Creus et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201511375531 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte GERARD BOSCH CREUS, MIKA KUULUSA, JUHA E. SAVOLAINEN, TANYA WIDEN, JAAKKO KYRO, THOMAS HUBBARD, JUAN FENG, HANNU ESALA, and MIKKO SILTANEN ______________ Appeal 2013-002582 Application 11/375,531 Technology Center 2800 _______________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 9, 10, and 12–20: under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), claims 1–4, 7, and 16–20 over Russie (US 7,620,452 B1); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 5, 9, 10, and 12–15 over Russie and Odaohhara (US 6,714,016 B2). App. Br. 2; FOA 2, 8.1 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner. OPINION We determine that the “means for” limitations in independent device 1 Final Office Action mailed October 27, 2011. See Ans. 2. Appeal 2013-002582 Application 11/375,531 2 claim 16 invoke the strictures of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. We further determine that the language of the step limitations in independent method claim 1 and of the component limitations comprising the device in independent device claim 18 does not connote sufficiently definite structure to one skilled in the art to avoid step- and means-plus-function treatment, thus also invoking the strictures of § 112, sixth paragraph, even though the term “means” does not appear therein. See, e.g., Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1217 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). We also determine that claims dependent on these claims do not specify sufficient structure to avoid the requirements of § 112, sixth paragraph. App. Br. 15–19 (Claims App’x). The Examiner has the burden in the first instance of interpreting the step- and means-plus-function limitations in the claims by determining the corresponding structure therefor in the Specification and equivalents thereof in order to compare the thus claimed inventions with the prior art. See, e.g., In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[T]he PTO was required by statute to look to Schuler’s specification and construe the ‘means’ language recited in the last segment of claim 1 as limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.”); see also, e.g., Welker Bearing Co., 550 F.3d at 1097. The Examiner has not carried this burden even implicitly. See generally FOA; Ans.; Briefs. Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation and of obviousness, we reverse pro forma the grounds of rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 9, 10, and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a). Appeal 2013-002582 Application 11/375,531 3 The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation