Appeal No. 1998-2869
Application 08/453,496
Appellants’ Reply Brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Furthermore, our reviewing court
has stated in In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29
USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) that the “plain and
unambiguous meaning of paragraph six is that one construing
means-plus-function language in a claim must look to the
specification and interpret that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein,
and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification
provides such disclosure.”
Upon our review of Appellants’ independent claims 1 and
12, we find that these claims recite means-plus-function
language which falls under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
which requires us to interpret this claim language by looking
to the specification for the corresponding structure and
equivalents thereof. Independent claim 1 recites “driving
state-determining means for determining whether or not said
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007