Appeal No. 2002-2026
Application No. 09/620,424
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and the arguments of Appellants
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Scope of Claim
The first question that we must address is whether the
"recovery means for recovering the data from the disc" recited in
Appellants' claim 11, is a means-plus-function element entitled
to defining structure as required under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. Our first determination is to determine whether the
claim element recites function or recites structure. Our
reviewing court has stated
"[a] limitation that is expressed in 'means-plus-
function' language and does not recite the fine
structure in support of its function, is subject to the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph."
B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896,1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner argues that the phrase "recovery means for
recovering the data from the disc" does not qualify as means-
plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
because it includes the word "recovery" and therefore refers to a
definite structure to perform to recovery function. Thus, the
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007