Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
corresponding structure, material or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof." (Emphasis added.)
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See also, Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland
Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934,4 USPQ2d 1737, 1738-39 (Fed. Cir. 1987),
cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 and cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1009
(1988)("As Judge Rich, one of the drafters of the statute, stated
in a 1952 address explaining the import of section 112, paragraph
6: 'If you adopt this practice, that element or step is to be
construed -- shall be construed (it is mandatory) -- to cover the
corresponding structure, material or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof.'"). The Federal Circuit
has also noted that "the PTO may not disregard the structure
disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language
when rendering a patentability determination." In re Donaldson
Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (in banc). See also In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1375
n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1908, 1912 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("Section 112 ¶6
cannot be ignored when a claim is before the PTO any more than
when it is before the courts in an issued patent"); Data Line
Corp. v. Micro Technologies Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1201, 1 USPQ2d
2052, 2055 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("where a claim sets forth a means
for performing a specific function, without reciting any specific
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007