Appeal No. 1999-0890
Application 07/575,096
recites a means for performing a specified function without the
recital of structure to perform the claimed function. See
35 U.S.C. Section 112, Para. 6 (1994); Cole v. Kimberly Clark
Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531, 41 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
("To involve [Section 112, Para. 6], the alleged
means-plus-function claim element must not recite a definite
structure which performs the described function.") The proper
construction of a means-plus-function claim limitation requires
interpreting the limitation in light of the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the written
description, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the
written description provides such disclosure. See In re
Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (in banc). Structure disclosed in the written
description is "corresponding" to the claimed means under Section
112, Para. 6 if the structure is linked by the written
description or the prosecution history to the function recited in
the claim. See B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d
1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1990 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also
Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d
1303, 1308, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007