Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 19
Application 07/613,466
39. Appellants urge no secondary considerations in
support of patentability.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Claim construction
1. We presume that a claim written in means-plus-
function or step-plus-function form is governed by the
provisions of the sixth paragraph of section 112 unless the
record unambiguously indicates otherwise. York Prods. v.
Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574,
40 USPQ2d 1619, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We see no
contraindication in this record.10
2. During prosecution, a claim must be construed as
broadly as is reasonable in light of the specification. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). This axiom is not, however, license to ignore the
strictures imposed by claiming in means-plus-function or step-
plus-function format. The format permitted under "section 112
¶6 operates to cut back on the types of means which could
literally satisfy the claim language." Johnston v. IVAC
10 This presumption is particularly appropriate during
proceedings before the Office, where an applicant has the
option to amend the claim or the record to overcome the
presumption.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007