Appeal No. 1999-2030 Page 6
Application No. 08/423,077
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
as a means or step for performing a specified function
without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Per Donaldson, the "broadest reasonable interpretation" that
an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that
statutorily mandated in paragraph six. Accordingly, the PTO
may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification
corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability
determination. Thus, in order to meet a "means-plus-function"
limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the identical
function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that
function using the structure disclosed in the specification or
an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro
Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983
F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d 1382,
1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007