Appeal No. 1997-2499
Application No. 08/228,449
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 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Products International Ltd.,
157 F.3d 1311, 1319, 48 USPQ2d 1099, 1104-1105 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
Applying the above statutory interpretation to the
present case, we determine that the terms “liquid state
catalyst coating means” recited in claim 11 is one of the
means-plus-function elements. Accordingly, we look to the
specification for the structure corresponding to the term and
the equivalents thereof to determine the scope of claim 11.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007