Appeal No. 1998-1181
Application No. 08/442,883
the claimed function. See 35 U.S.C. 112, Para. 6 (1994); Cole
v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531, 41 USPQ2d 1001,
1006 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("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 v. Cardinal
Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1755-56
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007