Appeal No. 2000-0581 Application No. 08/429,155 sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, appellant is still subject to the requirement in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that a claim "particularly point out and distinctly claim" the invention. As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), if one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112. If the examiner determines that any of the above-noted recitations does invoke the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is necessary to ascertain what structure in the specification corresponds to that language. Turning first to the "attaching device(s)" recitation, appellant's specification states, on page 5, that [a]n attaching device, represented as a mounting area 16, is defined by a plane where both fan blade 14 and replaceable fan blade tip 18 contact each other. A clip 20, as shown in Figure 2b, can be included on the replaceable tip 18 for engaging an aperture 17 (Fig. 2b) in the mounting area of fan blade 14. 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007