Appeal No. 1997-2896
Application 08/340,561
Chemical Co. 194 F.3d 1250, 1257, 52 USPQ 1258, 1263 (Fed.
Cir. 1999)(citing Al-Site Corp v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.2d
1314, 1318, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When
interpreting such claims the PTO “must look to the
specification and interpret that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein,
and equivalents thereof.” In re Donaldson,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “A
structure disclosed in the specification is only deemed to be
‘corresponding structure’ if the specification clearly links
or associates that structure to the function recited in the
claim.” Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1476, 45
USPQ2d 1608, 1611 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(citing B. Braun Med., Inc
v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900
(Fed. Cir. 1997)). “Section 112, Para. 6 requires both
identification of the claimed function and identification of
the structure in the written description necessary to perform
that function.” Micro Chemical Inc. V. Great Plains Chemical
Co. 194 F.3d at 1258, 52 USPQ at 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “In a
means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007