Appeal No. 96-3702
Application 08/208,688
In reissue proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1019, 210 USPQ 249, 253-54
(CCPA 1981). For claim limitations written in means-plus-
function format, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that
which is mandated by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, i.e., such
limitations cover or are limited to the corresponding structure
described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re
Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
The “tapered adjusting means” recitation in patent claim 14
is a means-plus-function limitation which is limited to
corresponding “tapered” structure described in the specification
(inverted truncated cone 58) and “tapered” equivalents thereof.
The “adjusting means” recitation in appealed claim 14 is a means-
plus-function limitation which is limited to corresponding
structure described in the specification (inverted truncated cone
58) and equivalents thereof which are not necessarily tapered.
The “mandrel spreader” recitation in appealed claim 21 is not a
means-plus-function limitation and thus is not limited to the
corresponding structure described in the specification (inverted
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007