Appeal No. 2001-1786
Application 08/420,796
conclusions of obviousness by the examiner which are not
supported by appropriate evidence on the record.
On the former point, we do not agree with the examiner’s
interpretation of the claims on appeal or the claims of the
patent. Claim 1 of the patent recites a processor means “for
performing processing of data” while claim 28 recites a data
processor means “for performing processing of data to enable
secure access, encryption, and affecting operation of the
electronic data processing equipment.” Although the processor
means of both claims performs the processing of data, the means
of claim 28 performs processing data for the specific purpose of
access, encryption, and affecting operation of the electronic
data processing equipment. Thus, the specific function of
processing recited in claim 28 is not the same as the more
general function recited in patent claim 1.
Construction of a means-plus-function limitation involves
two steps. First, one must identify the claimed function.
Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316,
1324, 58 USPQ2d 1545, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Micro Chem., Inc. v.
Great Plains Chem. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258, 52 USPQ2d
1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999). One must construe the function of a
means-plus-function limitation to include the limitations
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007