Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531, 41 USPQ2d 1001, 1006
(Fed. Cir. 1996); Serrano V. Telular Corp., 111 F.3d 1578, 1582,
42 USPQ2d 1538, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Fonar Corp. v. General
Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1551, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., 91 F.3d 1580,
1584, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786-87 (Fed. Cir. 1996); York Products
Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574,
40 USPQ2d 1619, 1623 (Fed Cir. 1996).
II.
A.
The Federal Circuit has stated that
the use of the term "means" has come to be so
closely associated with "means-plus-function"
claiming that it is fair to say that the use of
the term "means" (particularly as used in the
phrase "means for") generally invokes section
112(6) ....
Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1584, 39 USPQ2d at 1786-87. See also,
York Products Inc., 99 F.3d at 1574, 40 USPQ2d at 1623 ("the use
of the word "means"triggers a presumption that the inventor used
this term advisedly to invoke the statutory mandates for
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007