Appeal No. 97-1754
Application 08/462,133
Looking first at the examiner’s reasons for rejecting
claims 2 and 3 under the second paragraph of § 112, we do not
agree with the examiner that the claims are indefinite because
no functional
language is associated with the term “storage container means”
appearing in lines 24-25 of claim 2 and line 15 of claim 3.
We are aware of no authority, and the examiner has cited none,
that requires a function to be directly tied to the word
“means” when the word “means” is used to claim an element of a
claim, or that the failure to link a function with the word
“means” violates the second paragraph of § 112. As to the3
examiner’s contention that claim 3 is indefinite because there
is no proper antecedent basis for the recitation in line 35 of
“the same plane,” for reasons explained infra we also have
encountered difficulty in understanding the meaning of this
term; however, our difficulty does not stem from that term’s
However, mere incantation of the word “means” in a clause reciting3
predominately structure does not evoke the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
See York Prods. Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568,
1574, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1623 (Fed. Cir 1996).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007