Appeal No. 97-0754 Page 6
Application No. 08/408,478
Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in
the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a
patentability determination. In accordance with In re Donaldson,
16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850, "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 required by the
second paragraph of section 112." In addition, it is the
appellant's burden under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
to precisely define the invention. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this instance, the disclosure (specification, p. 4 and
original claim 1) adequately disclose what is meant by the
claimed means for connecting the adjoining ends of the shaft
sections. However, it is our view that the disclosure does not
adequately disclose what is meant by the claimed means for
engaging the overlapping inner surface of the larger end with the
overlapped outer surface of the smaller end. Specifically, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007