Appeal No. 1998-2179 Page 9
Application No. 08/433,231
construing means-plus-function language in a claim, we must look to the appellant's
specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material or acts
described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such
disclosure. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Looking to the appellant's specification (page 7), we are informed that the first
conveying means for feeding the blanks 5 individually one after the other to the intermediate
store 18-21 are conveying belts 14-17. Therefore, the language of claim 12 must be read to
cover a conveying belt or its equivalent. As the first conveyor of Newsome comprises
conveyor belts B1, B2, B3 for feeding the printed signatures to the vertical queue stack 16 and
as the Newsome conveyor belts B1, B2, B3, like the conveyor belts 14-17 disclosed in
appellant's specification, convey the articles placed thereon in a formation dictated by the
deposition of such articles on the belts, we are satisfied that the first conveyor of Newsome
meets the "first conveying means" limitation of claim 12.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of independent
claim 12 and claims 19 and 20 which stand or fall therewith (see brief, page 4).
We shall also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 13 as being unpatentable over
Newsome in view of Reist and Schall. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and adds the further
limitation that the first and second conveying means are oriented so as to be "substantially
perpendicular" to each other. We agree with the examiner's position that merely to dispose the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007