Appeal No. 1999-2211 Page 5
Application No. 08/620,427
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for
the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it."
Appellant asserts (brief, page 7) that he "is unaware of
any basis in patent law, rules, or cases for considering a
person who uses an invention to be an element of that
invention." Appellant further asserts (id., page 9) that "the
neck of the person A does not qualify as ‘a means for
releasably retaining the tubing of the stethoscope' as
requires by claim 7 of the present application or as ‘a means
for retaining the tubing of the stethoscope' as required by
claim 8."
We note at the outset that the language "means for
releasably retaining the stethoscope ear pieces" of claim 7
and "means for retaining the tubing of the stethoscope" of
claim 8
are in "means plus function" format. We find no structure set
forth elsewhere in these claims for carrying out the functions
of "releasably retaining the stethoscope ear pieces" or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007