Appeal No. 2000-0581
Application No. 08/429,155
sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, appellant is still subject
to the requirement in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
that a claim "particularly point out and distinctly claim" the
invention. As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42
USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing In re Donaldson, 16
F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994)),
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.
If the examiner determines that any of the above-noted
recitations does invoke the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112, it is necessary to ascertain what structure in the
specification corresponds to that language.
Turning first to the "attaching device(s)" recitation,
appellant's specification states, on page 5, that
[a]n attaching device, represented as a mounting
area 16, is defined by a plane where both fan blade
14 and replaceable fan blade tip 18 contact each
other. A clip 20, as shown in Figure 2b, can be
included on the replaceable tip 18 for engaging an
aperture 17 (Fig. 2b) in the mounting area of fan
blade 14.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007