Appeal No. 95-2867 Page 7
Application 07/744,324
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Claim construction
1. Appellants invoke In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,
29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc), in defending their claims.
The Donaldson decision requires the Patent and Trademark Office to
construe means- or step-plus-function limitations in terms of
corresponding structures or acts, respectively, disclosed in the
specification. 16 F.3d at 1194-95, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. It is proper for us to rely on this invocation in the record
in determining what Appellants intend to claim. Alpex Computer
Corp. v. Nintendo Co., 102 F.3d 1214, 1220, 40 USPQ2d 1667, 1672
(Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we understand the steps in the
appealed claims to be limited to the corresponding acts set forth in
the specification. O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1583,
42 USPQ2d 1777, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although the disclosure
focuses more on structures than on acts, the functions of the
structures provide a sufficient basis for us to determine the
underlying acts (just as we rely on the structures in the reference
to determine its inherent acts).
B. Obviousness
2. Inoue does not teach or suggest a reason for tuning the
filter to a frequency related to a local AC line frequency. The fact
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007