Ex Parte Hagenbuch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2002

08448764 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2002)

1 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LEROY G. HAGENBUCH
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0017
Application No. 08/448,764
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated February 15, 2002, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was
affirmed based upon the sole teachings of Weber.
Appellant argues (Request, pages 2 through 8) that the Board
ignored the requirements set forth in In re Donaldson1 for
interpreting means-plus-function claimed limitations, and that
Appeal No. 1999-0017
Application No. 08/448,764
2
Weber does not produce a “production rate” based upon a total
weight/operating parameter and the “elapsed operating time.”
We agree with the appellant’s argument (Request, pages 5 and
6) that his disclosure (specification, page 15, lines 29 through
34; Figure 3B) clearly indicates that “time” is a factor in the
claimed production “rate.” Although Weber discloses a timer
54 (column 4, lines 49 through 52 and column 6, lines 17 through
22), the output of the timer is never used in the calculation of
the production goal.
Appeal No. 1999-0017
Application No. 08/448,764
3
In view of appellant’s Donaldson argument, and the fact that
Weber does not use “time” as a factor in calculating a production
goal, appellant’s request that we reconsider our decision has
been granted, and our decision is hereby modified to reflect our
agreement with the appellant. Accordingly, the affirmance of the
rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
REHEARING
GRANTED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1999-0017
Application No. 08/448,764
4
JOHN B. CONKLIN
LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6780