Appeal No. 97-0974
Application No. 08/234,294
Cir. 1997). As the court in Dossel set forth, 115 F.3d at
946, 42 USPQ2d at 1885, in quoting with approval from In re
Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir.
1994):
[a]lthough paragraph six statutorily provides that
one may use means-plus-function language in a claim,
one is still subject to the requirement that a claim
"particularly point out and distinctly claim" the
invention. Therefore, if one employs means-plus-
function language in a claim, one must set forth in
the specification an adequate disclosure showing
what is meant by that language. If an applicant
fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the
applicant has in effect failed to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the invention as required
by the second paragraph of section 112.
Moreover, even when claims are not drafted in a means-plus-
function format, the terms or limitations used therein must
take on the meaning ascribed to them in the supporting
disclosure and, if there is an unreasonable uncertainty as to
this meaning, the claims are indefinite. See In re Cohn, 438
F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971) and In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235 n.2, 169 USPQ 236, 238 n.2 (CCPA 1971).
Here, independent claims 50 and 74 both set forth "means
for automatically selecting different ones of the sensing
modes to be used by the means for sensing . . ." and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007