Appeal No. 96-3130
Application 08/225,653
structure in Piatti. On the other hand, the examiner is of the
opinion that this means plus function clause "is so broad as to
read on both the exhaust valve and the intake valve" (answer,
page 3).
Since the limitation in question is drafted in a means-plus-
function format, the scope thereof is governed by 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29
USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Valmont Indus.,
Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., Inc., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d
1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Paragraph 6 of Section 112 "limits
the applicant to the structure, material, or acts in the
specification and their equivalents").
Reviewing the appellants' specification, it appears that
there are at least five distinct structural arrangements which
perform, or at least contribute to, this function: (1) the
positioning of the intake valve at an angle which is different
from the exhaust valve (see page 5, lines 5-20; page 6, lines 14-
17); (2) the valve seats for each cylinder being offset from one
another (see page 6, lines 1-5 and 9-13; (3) a restriction in the
exhaust passage (see page 6, lines 5-11); (4) the wedge-shaped
combustion chamber (see page 6, lines 25-29); and (5) a
protuberance in the intake passage (see page 8, lines 1-16). As
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007