Appeal No. 96-0982
Application 08/163,812
§ 112. The plain and unambiguous meaning of this paragraph is
that one construing means-plus-function language in a claim
must look to the specification and interpret that language in
light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that
the specification provides such disclosure. In re Alappat, 33
F.3d 1526, 1540, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir.
1994). As noted above, appellants point to the apparatus of
Figure 2 as performing the functions of the address decoding
means, the means for maintaining and the second means for
maintaining. This structure includes logic circuitry in
combination with a delay circuit (66 or 66E). Therefore, the
proper interpretation of claim 8 includes a delay circuit as
shown in Figure 2, and it was improper for the examiner to
argue that there was no delay circuit being claimed.
Since the examiner has not properly interpreted the
structure of the invention as recited in claim 8, the examiner
has failed to demonstrate that the apparatus specifically
recited in claim 8 is fully met by the disclosure of Larson.
We also find no basis to accept the examiner’s bare allegation
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007