Appeal No. 2006-0472
Application No. 10/859,119
When, as here, the claimed component is written in a means-
plus-function format, we must interpret it as being limited to
the corresponding structure described in the specification and
the equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc). However,
we cannot ascertain from the specification the structure
corresponding to the claimed means-plus-function component. The
specification, at page 5, states in relevant part:
In accordance with the present invention, fluid
jet texturizer of the texturing unit 30 exhibits
relatively low efficiency. That is, the orifice size of
the fluid jet texturizer is provided with a relatively
larger size fluid jet orifice (i.e., as compared to
higher efficiency texturizers) so as to operate at a
relatively lower fluid jet velocity. Operating at such
a lower fluid jet velocity, however, will not impart
the desired cylinder bulk (cc/g) properties. Therefore,
in accordance with the present invention, the fluid jet
texturizer is operated also at a relatively higher
temperature so that comparable cylinder bulk properties
(i.e., as compared to higher efficiency texturizers)
may be obtained. Therefore, the texturing unit 30
includes, according to the present invention, a fluid
jet texturizer operable at sufficently low fluid jet
velocity and at a sufficiently high fluid jet
temperature to obtain a yarn skein shrinkage of less
than about 0.50 inch (preferably about 0.25 inch or
less). When nylon-6 is employed to form the filaments,
the fluid jet textruizer will operate at a sufficiently
low fluid.
This description in the specification does not indicate what
particular structure is responsible for producing the claimed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007