Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 9
Application No. 08/962,902
the claimed function. See Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1318, 50
USPQ2d at 1167.
Because the second clause (i.e., the second means . . .)
of claim 1 uses the word "means," we presume that Section 112,
Paragraph 6 applies. We next look to whether the second
clause of claim 1 specifies a function. In making this
determination, we rely primarily on the claim language itself.
See York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574,
40 USPQ2d 1619, 1624 (Fed. Cir. 1996). After reviewing the
language of the second clause of claim 1, we reach the
determination that no function is associated therewith. In
that regard, the function of "for carrying substantially the
entirety of both feet of a standing rider in a variety of
positions and locations" is associated with the "wide upper
platform" not the "second means" and the function of "for
omni-directional sliding engagement with the ground and
ground-supported object [sic]" is associated with the "lower
portion" not the "second means." In sum, the second clause of
claim 1 does not warrant interpretation under Section 112,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007