Interference No. 103,036
20, 33, 37, 50 and 51 and those dependent thereon, electrical
switch means as required by independent claims 24 and 44 and
those dependent thereon must be those switches (membrane)
described in the Burroughs et al. specification or equivalents
thereof. See In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994), where the Court stated with respect
to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6:
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, we do not agree with Burroughs et al. that claims 13 and
30 and those dependent thereon are necessarily limited to the use
of membrane switches, because the claims do not recite electrical
switch means but rather recite "electrical switch."
Further, as to all claims it should be noted that the
Sterling, Kiernan and Parker patents were before the primary
examiner in charge of the examination of the patents and reissue
applications involved in this interference and the examiner found
that the parties' claims designated as corresponding to the count
of this interference are patentable over these patents. Nowhere
-29-
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007