Appeal No. 97-1156
Application 08/192,270
At the outset, an understanding of certain language in
independent claims 30, 31 and 38 is in order.
With respect to the language “being metallurgically
joined” and “being mechanically joined” in the context used in
claim 30, we note the propriety of functionally claiming
something, i.e., a structure, by what it does rather than by
what it is. See In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 210 USPQ 609,
611 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we comprehend the aforementioned
language in claim 30 as denoting the presence of metallurgical
joining structure and mechanical joining structure,
respectively.
Claims 31 and 38 include sixth paragraph (35 U.S.C. §
112) means plus function recitations. These recitations are
construed to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specifi-cation and equivalents thereof. Read in light of
the underlying disclosure (specification, page 3), we
understand these recitations as follows.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007