Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 5
Application No. 08/778,059
single discharge means launches a single respective
projectile [answer, page 4].
Claims 17 through 27 are each directed to a combination
of elements, including an element ("trigger means for
triggering said first discharge means and said second
discharge means") expressed in means-plus-function format. As
explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the PTO must treat means-plus-
function limitations in accordance with the statutory mandate
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, which reads:
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.
Although paragraph six statutorily provides that
applicants may use means-plus-function language in a claim,
applicants are still subject to the requirement of paragraph
two of section 112 that a claim "particularly point out and
distinctly claim" the invention. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d
543, 547-48, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957). Therefore, if one
employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007