Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
U.S. 812 ("To involve [Section 112, Para. 6], the alleged
means-plus-function claim element must not recite a definite
structure which performs the described function.") The proper
construction of a means-plus-function claim limitation
requires interpreting the limitation in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
written description, and equivalents thereof, to the extent
that the written description provides such disclosure. See In
re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc). Structure disclosed in the
written description is "corresponding" to the claimed means
under Section 112, Para. 6, if the structure is linked by the
written description or the prosecution history to the function
recited in the claim. See B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott
Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1990 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts Inc. v. Cardinal
Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1755-56
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
In the first subparagraph of this claim, the specific
function associated with the means limitation is generating a
masking noise signal in an auditory frequency range.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007