Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
means-plus-function clauses.") However, the Federal Circuit has
also noted that the use of the word means does not necessarily
invoke the provisions of the sixth paragraph:
Merely because a named element of a patent claim
is followed by the word "means," however, does not
automatically make that element a
"means-plus-function" element under 35 U.S.C.
Section 112, Para. 6.
Cole, 102 F.3d at 531, 41 USPQ2d at 1006. In order to invoke the
statute, the means-plus-function element must not recite a
definite structure. Serrano, 111 F.3d at 1582, 42 USPQ2d at 1541
("The 'determination means' limitation of that claim recites a
means for determining the last digit without reciting definite
structure in support of that function, and that limitation
therefore is a "means plus function" limitation subject to the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6"); Fonar Corp., 107 F.3d at
1551, 41 USPQ2d at 1807("An apparatus claim requires definite
structure in the specification to support the function in a means
clause. Because claim 12 does not recite such structure in
support of the defined function, it is therefore subject to
section 112, Para. 6."); Cole, 102 F.3d at 530-31, 41 USPQ2d at
1006. See also, Data Line Corp., 813 F.3d at 1201, 1 USPQ2d at
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007