Appeal No. 1998-2552
Application No. 08/292,977
recitation of structural limitations to perform this function.
See Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International Inc., 174 F.3d 1308,
1318, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is clear that
appellant’s claims recite means-plus-function language with no
corresponding structural limitations. Therefore we look to the
specification to interpret the corresponding structure needed to
accomplish the claimed function. As pointed out by appellant
(Brief, pages 6-7), each means-plus-function term in the claims
has specific corresponding structure as disclosed in the
specification. Accordingly, the claimed language is definite
and does not include “any possible means that meet the
functionality” (Answer, page 6) but only includes the disclosed
structures “and equivalents thereof.” See Al-Site Corp., supra,
and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 (1975).
The examiner further rejects claim 35 as indefinite since
this claim recites that the ring is slid over the second end of
the preform but the examiner alleges that the specification
teaches that the preform is inserted into the ring (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 6-7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007