Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
this problem by providing a construction of that
format narrow enough to avoid the problem of undue
breadth as forbidden by the first paragraph. But no
provision saves a claim drafted in
means-plus-function format which is not drawn to a
combination, i.e., a single means claim.
In the present case, although claims 28, 30, 33, and 37
do not recite even a single means, they are analogous to
single means claims in that they recite neither a specific
structure nor a combination of means. In the absence of any
recitation of structure or multiple means, claims 28, 30, 33,
and 37 are not drawn to a combination. Thus the claims appear
to cover "every conceivable means for achieving the stated"
method, whereas the specification discloses only those limited
means or elements known to the inventor. As to appellant's
proposed interpretation of claims 28, 30, 33, and 37, no means
is recited, and the structure required for each method need
not be claimed in terms of means-plus-function. Instead, some
or all of the structure required to perform the method
alternatively could be recited as one or more specific
elements. In fact, apparatus claim 1, which basically
corresponds to method claim 27, is a hybrid type claim which
recites a camera (a specific element) for accomplishing the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007