Appeal No. 1997-2896 Application 08/340,561 Chemical Co. 194 F.3d 1250, 1257, 52 USPQ 1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(citing Al-Site Corp v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.2d 1314, 1318, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When interpreting such claims the PTO “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof.” In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “A structure disclosed in the specification is only deemed to be ‘corresponding structure’ if the specification clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1476, 45 USPQ2d 1608, 1611 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(citing B. Braun Med., Inc v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “Section 112, Para. 6 requires both identification of the claimed function and identification of the structure in the written description necessary to perform that function.” Micro Chemical Inc. V. Great Plains Chemical Co. 194 F.3d at 1258, 52 USPQ at 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “In a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure is 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007