Appeal No. 96-2661
Application 08/177,975
On page 10 of the brief, Appellants argue that claim
17 is written in means-plus-function format as sanctioned by
the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and in accordance with
the decision of In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants argue that the claimed language
must be interpreted in light of the specification. Appellants
point to Figure 12 and argue that the S-shape correction
circuit means provides a curve 97 as shown in Figure 12 as
having a maximum of linearity error of a substantially
constant value over a range of horizontal deflection frequen-
cies of 30 kHz to 60 kHz and that the maximum linearity error
of a substantially constant value is less than 5% over the
predetermined range of horizontal deflection frequencies of 30
kHz to 60 kHz.
Our reviewing court has stated in Donaldson, 16 F.3d
at 1193, 29 USPQ2d at 1848, that the "plain and unambiguous
meaning of paragraph six is that one construing means-plus-
function language in a claim must look to the specification
and interpret that language in light of the corresponding
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007