Appeal No. 96-1678
Application 08/322,731
to an axis of said roll . . .” (claim 19, lines 37-39).
Further, the means-plus-function limitation of claim 19,
lines 37-39, reads in full “means mounting said sealing elements
for displacement transverse to an axis of said roll out of paths
of said heads as said heads are lowered toward said upper wedge-
shaped gaps” (emphasis added). Our review of appellants’
specification reveals no disclosure whatsoever of any structure
for providing a condition responsive relationship between
displacement of the sealing elements 18 transverse to the axis of
the wound roll 6 and lowering of the heads 9, 10 toward the
wedge-shaped gaps between the support cylinders 2, 3. This
circumstance increases our difficulty in determining precisely
what disclosed structure corresponds to the “means” of lines
35-37.
As stated by our present court of review in In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994):
Although paragraph six [of 35 U.S.C. § 112] statutorily
provides that one may use means-plus-function language
in a claim, one is still subject to the requirement
that a claim “particularly point out and distinctly
claim” the invention. Therefore, if one employs
means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set
forth in the specification an adequate disclosure
showing what is meant by that language. If an
applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure,
the applicant has in effect failed to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention as
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007