Appeal No. 95-1187
Application 08/024,495
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Claim construction
Scope of claim 8
1. During prosecution, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
re Snead, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
The steps in claim 8 must be construed to
cover corresponding acts in the specification
2. Claim 8 is written in step-plus-function format, which
triggers a presumption that its steps must be construed to cover
the corresponding acts in the specification. 35 U.S.C. § 112;
see also York Prods. Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,
99 F.3d 1568, 1574, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Use of
"means" language triggers the presumption.); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d
989, 999, 169 USPQ 95, 97 (CCPA 1971) (applying then-paragraph
three to a similarly worded method claim).
3. This presumption finds support in the record, where
both Applicant and the examiner discuss the equivalence of
various elements. (E.g., Paper 25 at 11-12; Paper 26 at 4-5.)
Moreover, claim 8 recites broad functions in comparison to the
specificity of the disclosure (e.g., Paper 1, Figs. 3A & 3B),
- 11 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007