Appeal No. 2001-0737 Page 10
Application No. 08/766,212
'004 fail to disclose the claimed "means to enable securing of
said counterweight to said clamping band means." Likewise,
both Oetiker '012 and Oetiker '004 fail to disclose the
claimed "means in said clamping band means to increase the
holding ability of the clamp structure and therewith increase
the weight of the counterweight means which can be reliably
secured to the part."
Since all the limitations of claim 62 are not found in
either Oetiker '012 or Oetiker '004, the decision of the
2(...continued)
paragraph 6, which reads:
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.
The holding in Donaldson sets a limit on how broadly the USPTO
may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of
"reasonable interpretation." 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007