Appeal No. 96-4045
Application 08/441,984
be so closely associated with 'means-plus-
function' claiming that it is fair to say
that the use of the term 'means'
(particularly as used in the phrase 'means
for') generally evokes § 112(6) and that
the use of a different formulation
generally does not. Greenberg v. Ethicon
Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1584, 39
USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Since the language of claim 22, lines 7 through 12 evokes
§ 112(6), and since § 112(6) requires us to construe claim
limitations in light of the structure, material, or acts in
support thereof in the specification and the equivalents
thereof, In re Donaldson & Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ
1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we must look to appellant’s
specification for proper construction of the “means for
deforming” in line 6 of
claim 22. The following passages from appellant’s
specification are examples of passages that indicate that the
claimed door lock bracket is deformed in a separate bending
apparatus: page 3, lines 22-24; page 4, lines 20-23 and lines
26-32, page 5, line 18; page 6, line 30; page 7, lines 4-10;
page 8, lines 7-10 and lines 18-20. Therefore, it is quite
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007