Appeal No. 1996-3525 Page 12
Application No. 08/089,595
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
as a means or step for performing a specified function
without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
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.
Clearly the appellants intend to invoke the statutory
mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, from their use of
the term "means . . . for." Section 2183 of the MPEP5
provides
If the examiner finds that a prior art element
performs the function specified in the claim, and is not
excluded by any explicit definition provided in the
specification for an equivalent, the examiner should
infer from that finding that the prior art element is an
equivalent, and should then conclude that the claimed
5The term "means for" generally invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91
F.3d 1580, 1584, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786-87 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007