Appeal No. 1999-2256 Page 10
Application No. 08/686,477
is currently being performed [col. 27, lines 1-5].”
(Examiner’s Answer at 5.) The appellants argue, “[t]here is
no disclosure or suggestion of such structure which is the
same or equivalent to the structure disclosed in the
specification which resets the watch dog timer means while
said DMA uses said bus.” (Appeal Br. at 12.) When asked
about claim 10 at oral hearing, moreover, the appellants’
counsel emphasized that the claim included means-plus-function
language.
“[O]ne 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.” In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (en banc). Here, claim 4 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: “timer control means for resetting
said watch dog timer means when said CPU transmits a bus
permission signal to said DMAC for using said bus.”
Similarly, claims 5 and 10 specify in pertinent part the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007