Appeal No. 1998-0628
Application 08/197,100
Brief (Paper No. 31) (pages referred to as "Br__") for
Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 30-37 and 39-43 stand or fall together with
claim 30. Claims 44 and 25-29 stand or fall together with
claim 44.
Claims 30-37 and 39-43
Initially, we interpret the phrase "for area
determination of the flaws detected in the high-contrast
image" in claim 30 as a statement of intended use. Statements
of intended use are not structural limitations that
distinguish over the prior art. See In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974);
In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA
1973); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA
1967). While, perhaps, we could interpret the
"image-processing device . . . for area determination of the
flaws detected in the high-contrast image" as a means-plus-
function limitation because the "device" does not recite any
structure for performing the function, since claim 30 uses
"means" elsewhere, it is presumed that limitations not using
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007