Appeal No. 1999-0983
Application No. 08/782,891
anchoring
function was the only feature of the bead wire
pertinent to the claimed invention and therefore
would not have understood appellant to have
implicitly disclosed any possible carcass anchoring
means by explicitly reciting only the bead wire.
We agree with the appellant and, apparently, the examiner
that "carcass anchoring means" is a means-plus-function
expression within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. As such, the sixth paragraph provides that it
shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure
described in the specification (i.e., the bead wire) and
equivalents thereof; the examiner's implication, supra, that
it covers "any possible carcass anchoring means" is a broader
interpretation than the statute provides. See In re Donaldson
Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
The examiner seems to be of the opinion that, for a
disclosed structure to be the structure which corresponds to a
means-plus-function, the claimed function must be the only
feature of the structure which is pertinent to the claimed
invention. We are aware of no authority for this proposition
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007