Appeal No. 1994-4016
Application No. 07/793,824
examiner’s prior art rejections is to correctly construe the
scope and meaning of the claimed subject matter. Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). As a matter of law, we construe the scope of the
claimed subject matter. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
1995)(en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Generally, we
give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the terms in
the claims consistent with appellant’s specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). When the terms in the claims are written in a
“means-plus-function” format, however, we interpret them as
the corresponding structure described in the specification and
the equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. 112,
paragraph 6. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29
USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc). The manner in
which a “means-plus-function” element is expressed, either by
a function followed by the term “means” or by the term “means
for” followed by a function, is unimportant so long as the
modifier of that term specifies a function to be performed.
Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694, 695 (Bd. App. 1967).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007