Appeal No. 1996-3975
Application No. 08/328,179
appellants’ specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa,
537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 4564, 466 (CCPA 1976); In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). When the terms in the claims are written in a
“means-plus-function” format, however, we interpret them as
the corresponding structure described in the specification or
the equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 6. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in banc). The manner in which a
“means-plus-function” element is expressed, either by a
function followed by the term “means” or by the term “means
for” followed by a function, is unimportant so long as the
modifier of that term specifies a function to be performed.
Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694, 695 (Bd. App. 1967).
Nevertheless, the term “means” as used above is not treated as
a means-plus-function element if the claimed “means” includes
sufficient structural limitations. See Al-Site Corp. v. VSI
International Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1319, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1167
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007