Appeal No. 1994-4016
Application No. 07/793,824
Nevertheless, the term “means” as used above is not considered
as a means-plus-function element if the claimed “means”
includes sufficient structural limitations to perform the
recited function. See Al-Site Corp. v. Vsi Int'l, Inc., 174
F.3d 1308, 1319, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir.
1999); Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Int'l., 157 F.3d
1311, 1319, 48 USPQ2d 1099, 1104-1105 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Applying the above precedents to the present situation,
we initially determine that “vertical support means,” “a
tracing assembly support means,” “means for cutting the excess
material applied to workpiece” and “a tracing assembly means”
in claim 1 are means-plus-function elements within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. Nowhere does claim 1 recite
sufficient structural limitations for the above-mentioned
“means”. Similarly, we also determine that “a vertical
support means,” “a sliding support means,” “a cutter rotating
means,” “cutting means,” “means for tracing" and “a means for
adjusting the tracing means” in claim 21 are means-plus-
function elements within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 6. However, we do not construe “a tracing assembly
support means” in claim 21 as a means-plus-function element
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007