Appeal No. 2006-1557 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/220,514
The claim limitation argued by appellants is in a
means-plus-function format without setting forth the structure in
the claim and therefore must be interpreted as limited to the
corresponding structure described in the specification or the
equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193,
29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc).
Appellants refer to page 11, line 16 to page 12, line 9 of
the specification and figure 5 of the drawings for alleged
corresponding structure described in the specification. In this
regard, we note that WO 01/65005 (published PCT/FI01/00210) was
submitted as corresponding to the originally filed international
application PCT/FI01/00210 that is the original specification of
this national stage application. The referred to section of the
specification (page 11, line 16 through page 12, line 9) is drawn
to describing originally submitted drawing figures 6-10. Lines
4-9 of page 12 of that portion of the original specification
discloses that the division of the web can take place at
locations after the drying, calendering, or coating; that is, at
locations downstream of the so called paper machine outlet argued
by appellants. See, e.g., original drawing figure 5, which shows
a cutter (19) at an “outlet end” of a “paper machine.”
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007