Appeal No. 1996-3504
Application No. 08/265,648
scope and meaning of the claimed subject matter. Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, we give the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the terms in claims consistent with
appellants‘ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-
54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When the terms in
the claims are written in a “means-plus-function” format,
however, we interpret them as the corresponding structure
shown in the specification or equivalents 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). 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).
According to Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International Inc., 174 F.3d
1308, 1313, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999),
if the word “means” appears in a claim element in
combination with a function, it is presumed to be a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007