Appeal No. 2001-1786
Application 08/420,796
contained in the claim language, and only those limitations. It
is improper to narrow the scope of the function beyond the claim
language. It is equally improper to broaden the scope of the
claimed function by ignoring clear limitations in the claim
language. Ordinary principles of claim construction govern
interpretation of the claim language used to describe the
function.
After identifying the claimed function, one must then
determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification
corresponds to the claimed function. In order to qualify as
corresponding, the structure must not only perform the claimed
function, but the specification must clearly associate the
structure with performance of the function. This inquiry is
undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Amtel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d
1374, 1378-79, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 296 F.3d 1106,
1113, 63 USPQ2d 1725, 1730 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The first inquiry noted above results in a finding that
the function performed by the processor means of claim 28 is not
the same as the function performed by patent claim 1. As noted
above, the function of the claimed means cannot be narrowed or
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007