-
In the matter of described in re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997) U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 07/543,600 application (the ‘600 application), now U.S. Patent 5,885,215 (the 215 patent)The claimed subject matter is drawn to a method of reconstructing the spatial current distribution in a biological object, i.e. the generation of medical images of a patient. The relevant claim language of independent issued claim 1 (Claim 8 on appeal) is as follows:. . . and means for reconstructing the current distributions of the volume elements which are situated on said surfaces on the basis of said measured values.The written description of the specification supports this means-plus-function recitation with the following disclosure:A reconstruction unit 11 reconstructs the density of the impressed current at the individual voxels Vi (1 . . . i . . . s, where s is the number of voxels on the marked surface) from the measuring values of the magnetic flux density at the various pixels at each time the same instant. Known algorithms can be used for this purpose. ˜215 patent, col. 4, ll. 5-11.Issue: Does the disclosure of specific equations to perform the function of reconstruction coupled with the disclosure that known algorithms can be used to solve those equations satisfy the corresponding structure, material or acts requirement of 112 ¶ 6 to avoid an indefiniteness rejection?
I’m not sure about this one as the MPEP clearly states, “A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation.” (2181(III)) Shouldn’t the examiner reject the claim under 112(b)?
-
0 Replies
Sorry, there were no replies found.
Log in to reply.