Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that their “means-plus-function
language must be construed to cover only the structure
described in the specification, and equivalents thereof, to
the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.
In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849
(Fed. Cir. 1994).” (Brief at page 21).
Looking at claim 14, lines 8 and 11 we see “driving
signal generating means for generating driving signals for
each respective motor in accordance with the detected
frequency of the respective motors.” Appellants urge that the
“driving signal generating means” is the single microcomputer
in their specification. We note that functional language
follows this “means for” language of the claim and Appellants
are entitled to rely on their disclosure for thus limiting the
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution. We
also note that Appellants have disclosed no equivalents of
their microcomputer and thereby argue that claim 14 must be
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007