Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
The third and fourth subparagraphs of this claim recite
specific means for performing the claimed function. The third
subparagraph provides for a "transducer" to perform the
function of converting sounds in an auditory frequency range
into audio frequency electrical signals. The fourth
subparagraph provides an "ultrasonic modulator" to perform the
function of converting the audio frequency signals into
ultrasonic frequency electrical signals. Thus, these
subparagraphs collapse the assumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, is invoked.38
In the final subparagraph of this claim, the specific
function associated with the means limitation is "applying
said ultrasonic frequency electrical signals physically to a
38See Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 704-05, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1887 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (finding that "digital detector" could not be
construed as means-plus-function limitation; "detector" is not
generic structural term, but rather had well-known meaning to
those skilled in the art); Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery,
Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(Section 112, para. 6, could not apply to "detent mechanism"
simply because claim took its name from function; "detent" had
well understood meaning in the art); Cole, 102 F.3d at 531, 41
USPQ2d at 1006 (no means-plus-function treatment where claim
described both structure and location).
32
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007