Source: http://www.ptab.us/2012/05/reversed-1700-chemical-materials_23.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 11:59:44+00:00

Document:
The use of means-plus-function language in a claim does not excuse an appellant from complying with the claim definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2011-1390, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2012). If an Applicant does not disclose structure for a means plus function term, the claim is indefinite. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., 673 F.3d at 1361.
Appellants additionally argue that Stieber is not prior art because the Examiner is not entitled to use the filing of a provisional application in a §102(e) rejection. App. Br. 27-30. This issue has, since the filing of Appellants’ brief, been addressed in In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the patent-defeating date of a published application under §102(e) can be the provisional filing date).

References: § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §102
 §102