Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, with respect to independent
claims 1 and 2 which both recite “planar display means.”
Our reviewing court has stated in In re Donaldson Co.
Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994) that the “plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six
is that one construing means-plus-function language in a claim
must look to the 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.” In addition, we
note that the plain language of paragraph six makes it clear
that one must construe “step for claims” in the same manner.
Moreover, when interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless
it appears from the
specification or the file history that they were used
differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. V. Electro
Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007