Appeal No. 1998-0078
Application No. 08/478,814
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When the terms in the claims are written in a
“means-plus-function” format, however, we interpret them as the corresponding structure
shown in the specification or equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, paragraph 6. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The manner in which a “means-plus-function” element is expressed, either by a
function followed by the term “means” or by the term “means for” followed by a function,
is unimportant so long as the modifier of that term specifies a function to be performed.
Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694, 695 (Bd. App. 1967). According to Al-Site Corp. v. VSI
International Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1313, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999),
if the word “means” appears in a claim element in combination with a
function, it is presumed to be a means-plus-function element to which
§ 112, ¶ 6 applies .... Nevertheless according to its express terms, § 112, ¶ 6
governs only claim elements that do not recite sufficient structural
limitations. See also Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Products
International Ltd., 157 F.3d 1311, 1319, 48 USPQ2d 1099, 1104-05 (Fed.
Cir. 1998).
Claim construction is a question of law that we review de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS
Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(in banc).
Applying the above statutory interpretation to the present case, we determine that
the terms “gas supply means” and “switching means” recited in claim 26 are
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007