tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post7458286482466345208..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: PTAB finds that "arranged to enable particles to occupy the closest extreme position" is necessarily met since one of two extremes must be closestKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-77808117166963593962013-10-22T19:10:06.086-04:002013-10-22T19:10:06.086-04:00Good question. In the vast majority of file histor...Good question. In the vast majority of file histories that I review, nobody -- not the Applicant, not the Examiner, not the Board -- pays much attention to 112 P6. <br /><br />> reference that "accidentally" achieves the recited function would <br />>very likely not anticipate the disclosed means<br /><br />Hmm. Interesting angle. <br /><br />The Appeal Brief did state that the drive means was a "driver or controller 100." So that's the "structure" here. <br /><br />As I read it, the reference didn't teach a controller *programmed* to achieve the recited function. Not sure if the Board would require specific disclosure this programmed function or not. The words "structure" and "function" as used in 112 P6 get kinda squishy when applied to claims involving software/firmware/programmable functions. Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3791088709081905492013-10-21T12:54:48.319-04:002013-10-21T12:54:48.319-04:00Why wasn't the "drive means" examine...Why wasn't the "drive means" examined as a means-plus-function claim? In that case, a reference that "accidentally" achieves the recited function would very likely not anticipate the disclosed means. LBhttp://www.uspto.govnoreply@blogger.com