Ex parte Litovitz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2000

07642417 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte THEODORE A. LITOVITZ
__________
Appeal No. 1996-0938
Application No. 07/642,417
__________
HEARD: Sep. 13, 2000
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 26, 28 through 53 and 55 through 82.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and an
apparatus for inhibiting the adverse effect on a living system
Appeal No. 1996-0938
Application No. 07/642,417
2
of an ambient time varying field having as characteristic
parameters one or more of amplitude, period, phase, waveform
and direction.
Claims 1 and 28 are illustrative of the claimed
invention, and they read as follows:
1. A method of inhibiting the adverse effect on a living
system of an ambient time varying field having as
characteristic parameters one or more of amplitude, period,
phase, waveform and direction, the field having an electric
component and a magnetic component, which method comprises the
step of changing at least one of the characteristic parameters
of said field to which the living system is exposed, and the
step of effecting the change within time intervals of less
than 10 seconds.
28. Apparatus for inhibiting the adverse effect on a
living system of an ambient time varying field having as
characteristic parameters one or more of amplitude, period,
phase, waveform and direction, the field having an electric
component and a magnetic component, which apparatus comprises
a means for changing at least one of the characteristic
parameters of said field to which the living system is
exposed, and a means for effecting the change within time
intervals of approximately 10 seconds or less.
Claims 1 through 26, 28 through 53 and 55 through 82
stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
as being indefinite because they are single means claims.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1996-0938
Application No. 07/642,417
In In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 1971
(Fed. Cir. 1983), the Court intimated that a single means
claim should be rejected under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, and not the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3
Appellant argues inter alia that the claims on appeal
recite either a combination of steps (Brief, page 13), or two
means (Brief, page 18). We agree with the appellant’s
argument that the claims on appeal are not single means
claims. Each of the apparatus claims includes a means for
changing at least one of the characteristic parameters of the
noted field, and a means for making the change within a
specified time interval. Each of the method claims includes
two steps that perform the functions of the two means.
In summary, the examiner has not presented a sound basis
for rejecting the claims under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112 .1
Appeal No. 1996-0938
Application No. 07/642,417
4
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
26, 28 through 53 and 55 through 82 under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Stuart S. Levy )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:tdl
Appeal No. 1996-0938
Application No. 07/642,417
5
PILLSBURY MADISON & SUTRO LLP
Cushman, Darby & Cushman IP Group
Ninth Floor
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3918