Appeal No. 98-2735
Application No. 90004386
Unidynamics Corp. V. Automatic Products International Ltd.,
157 F.3d 1311, 1319, 48 USPQ2d 1099, 1104-1105 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
Applying the above statutory interpretation to the
present case, we determine that the terms “blister copper
producing means” and “blister copper launder means” recited in
claim 1 are means-plus-function elements. See also
appellants’ admission at, e.g., Brief, pages 16-19. Nowhere
does claim 1 recite sufficient structural limitations for
either “blister copper launder means” or “blister copper
producing means”, which can perform continuous copper
smelting. See Unidynamic Corp., 157 F.3d at 1319, 48 USPQ2d
at 1105. Thus, we look to the specification for the structure
corresponding to “blister copper producing means” and “blister
copper launder means” and equivalents thereof to determine the
scope of claim 1, the broadest claim in this application.
We observe that the specification defines “blister copper
producing means” as follows (column 3, line 52 to column 4,
line 12):
As is the case with the prior art smelting
apparatus, the continuous copper smelting apparatus
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007