Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
paragraph, procedures
for construing means-plus-function claim terminology.4
However,
even if the "first opening means . . ." and "conduit means . .
." recitations of claim 1 are considered to be means-plus-
function limitations within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, they do not distinguish over Trammell’s
opening 34 and conduit means 27, 34. This is so because
Trammell’s opening 34 and conduit means 27, 34 are fully
capable of functioning in the ways set forth in the claim,
and, in our view, are structurally the same as, or at least
the equivalent of, the structures disclosed in appellant’s
specification that correspond to the claimed "opening means"
and "conduit means" (i.e., opening 24 and tube 16,
See York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm &4
Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574, 40 USPQ2d, 1619, 1623 (Fed.
Cir. 1996)(mere incantation of word "means" does not
necessarily evoke § 112, sixth paragraph); Cole v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531, 41 USPQ2d 1001, 1006
(Fed. Cir. 1996)(merely because named element of claim is
followed by word "means" does not automatically make element
"means-plus-function" element under
§ 112, sixth paragraph).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007