Appeal No. 1997-3856
Application No. 08/313,794
means for detecting" in dependent claim 15 indicates that
sensors are additional to the limitations of independent claim
8 and, therefore, that the controlling means of claim 8 must
not refer to the sensors and, consequently, lacks supporting
structure in the specification.
Means-plus-function language must be interpreted as
limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the
specification. See In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosed
structure corresponding to the means for controlling the head
conveyor in claim 8 is clearly sensors 30, 91, and 91'. The
examiner, however, has chosen to ignore the disclosed
structure, rejecting all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 rather
than only the few dependent claims which were perceived to
double recite the sensors.
The purpose of the second paragraph of § 112 is to
basically insure, with a reasonable degree of particularity,
an adequate notification of the metes and bounds of what is
being claimed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166
USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). When viewed in light of this
authority, the most reasonable interpretation of claim 8
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007