Appeal 2007-0630
Application 10/643,597
Cir. 1994). We observe that independent claims 13 and 14, as well as
dependent claim 15, on appeal, are drawn to a system for cleaning
semiconductor wafer surfaces having, inter alia, mechanical elements
defined by means-plus-function limitations. Claim 13 recites “a means for
applying an elevated pressure …”, and claim 14 requires two separate such
means. Claim 15 requires “a means adapted to receive and mix ….” The
appealed process claims recite corresponding steps.
When the claimed elements are defined by means-plus-function
and/or step-plus-function limitations, we must interpret them as being
limited to the corresponding structures described in the specification and the
equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. In re
Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994)(en banc). The Specification must disclose the corresponding
structures of the claimed means-plus-function limitations in such a manner
that one skilled in the art would know and understand what structures
correspond to the claimed means-plus-function limitations. Atmel Corp. v.
Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382, 53 USPQ2d 1225,
1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
According to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v)(2004), the Appellant is
required to identify “every means plus function and step plus function as
permitted by 35 U.S.C. [§] 112, sixth paragraph,” and set forth “the
structure, material, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to
each claimed function . . . with reference to the specification by page and
line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters” in the
Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section of the Brief. However, the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013