Appeal No. 96-0425 Page 12
Application No. 08/108,986
cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Per Donaldson, the "broadest reasonable interpretation" that
an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that
statutorily mandated in paragraph six. Accordingly, the PTO
may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification
corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability
determination. In this case, the claimed "means for moving"
is separate from the first conveyor means (i.e., entry
conveyor 2) and is construed to cover the corresponding
structure described in the specification (i.e., accelerating
roller 20, counter-pressure roller 21 and moveable barrier 22)
and equivalents thereof. In this case, the examiner has not
pointed to any structure in Hognestad that would be equivalent
to this structure. In fact, it would appear to us that the
examiner was relying on Hognestad's belt feeder to be both the
claimed "first conveyor means" and the claimed "means for
moving." This is inappropriate in this instance.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007