Appeal No. 95-3498
Application 08/176,330
Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994) that the "plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six
is that one construing means-plus-function language in a claim
must look to the specification and interpret that language in
light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that
the specification provides such disclosure." However, our
reviewing court also has stated that "[i]t is applicant’s
burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.” In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Appellants have not pointed to the structure or
structures as disclosed in their specification which
correspond to these claimed means. Without Appellants
precisely defining the corresponding disclosed structure, we
find that the Examiner reasonably interpreted the claim. In
the absence of such input by Appellants, the claims are given
the broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007