Appeal No. 1998-2581
Application No. 08/472,965
and the concentration chamber at any time (Brief, pages 12-13).
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s anticipation
and obviousness analyses is that the claim must first have been
correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of each
contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454,
1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The contested limitation is “means for providing a gas-tight or
liquid-tight seal between said auxiliary reservoir and the
concentration chamber” when the reservoir is received in the
aperture in the chamber (see both claims 1 and 2 on appeal).
Accordingly, this limitation invokes the strictures of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶6, since it recites “means” in combination with a
function with no corresponding claimed structure. See Al-Site
Corp. v. VSI Int. Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1318, 50 USPQ2d 1161,
1166 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As correctly argued by appellant on page
15 of the Brief, recitation in the claim of a “means plus
function” limitation is construed by looking to the
specification to interpret this language in light of the
corresponding structure described therein, and equivalents
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007