Appeal No. 1998-1111
Application 08/539,513
Our reviewing court has stated in In re Donaldson Co.
Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994) that the "plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six
is that one construing means-plus-function language in a claim
must look to the specification and interpret that language in
light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that
the specification provides such disclosure." Moreover, when
interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from
the specification or the file history that they were used
differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro
Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To determine the scope of means
or step plus function limitations, we must perform the two
steps set forth in Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007