Appeal No. 2003-0508 Page 8
Application No. 09/449,023
structure for those means. See Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc.,
174 F.3d 1308, 1318, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
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). 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. See Amtel Corp. v. Info.
Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1378-79, 53 USPQ2d 1225,
1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
However, if an applicant fails to set forth an adequate
disclosure setting forth the corresponding structure, the
applicant could have, in effect, failed to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second
paragraph of section 112. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007