Appeal No. 98-2735
Application No. 90004386
1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, we give the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the terms in the claims consistent with
appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-
1055, 44 USPQ2d 1023 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When the terms in
the claims are written in a “means-plus-function” format,
however, we interpret them as the corresponding structure
described in the specification or equivalents thereof
consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. In re
Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994)(in banc). The manner in which a “means-plus-function”
element is expressed, either by a function followed by the
term “means” or by the term “means for” followed by a
function, is unimportant so long as the modifier of that term
specifies a function to be performed. Ex part Klumb, 159 USPQ
694, 695 (Bd. App. 1967). Nevertheless, the term “means” as
used above is not treated as a means-plus-function element if
the claimed “means” includes sufficient structural
limitations. See Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International Inc., 174
F.3d 1308, 1319, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007