Appeal No. 97-0986
Application 08/430,580
selected winding attachment position. This is deemed to be a ‘means for maintaining the
armature in a single angular orientation’” (answer, page 5).
We appreciate the examiner’s point that Eckart’s tensioning belt 10 in conjunction
with the motor 66 is capable of functioning to maintain the armature 12 in a single angular
orientation (column 4, lines 39-44). However, as aptly pointed out by appellants on page 9
of the brief, and in contrast to what the examiner would apparently have us believe, this is
not all that is required by claim 9. In view of In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the “means for maintaining” limitation of
claim 9 must be interpreted in accordance with the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
i.e., “construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” Thus, the circumstance that the belt and motor of Eckart, taken
together, are capable of functioning in the manner called for in the means plus function
limitation is not enough because the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 operates to cut
back on the types of means which could literally satisfy the claim language. Johnston v.
Ivac. Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Looking to appellants’ specification, we find disclosed therein two alternative
structures for performing the maintaining function set forth in the means plus function
limitation in question. The first structure is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 and comprises
two U-shaped support surfaces, namely, a smaller radius support surface
38A for engagement with the cam body 24 and a larger radius support
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007