Appeal No. 96-2661
Application 08/177,975
structure, material, or acts described therein, and equiva-
lents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides
such disclosure." We note that the Appellants have not argued
that the claim language recited in claim 17 must be inter-
preted as corresponding structure that is disclosed in the
specification. Appellants argue that we must interpret the
claim in view of a graph Figure 12 which shows the perfor-
mance or function of the circuit, but does not show or dis-
close corresponding structure.
Our reviewing court as stated in Donaldson, 16 F.3d
at 1193, 29 USPQ2d at 1848, held that means-plus-function
language must be interpreted in light of corresponding struc-
ture. However, we do not agree that our reviewing court held
that means-plus-function language must be interpreted to
provide further functions of the means such as shown in Appel-
lants' Figure 12. Furthermore, our reviewing court states in
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow."
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007