Appeal No. 2000-1801
Application No. 08/667,660
claims. Accordingly, we shall reverse that rejection for the
following reasons.
A key feature of the claimed apparatus is embodied in the
following limitation:
“. . . a controller for comparing said first
thickness measurement with said process model of non-
thickness data based on said model data relating to said
layer growth and to obtain second target thickness of a
second layer to be grown; . . . “
The disposition of this appeal depends upon the interpretation
which is to be given to this limitation. In our view, a proper
construction of the language in question is governed by the
provisions of the sixth paragraph of 35 USC § 112. These
provisions require that an element in a claim (the controller
here), which is expressed as a means for performing a specified
function, shall be construed as being limited to the corresponding
structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Cf. Mas-Hamilton Group, Inc. v. La Gard Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1213,
48 USPQ 2d 1010, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (absence of the catch
phrase “means for” does not prevent a limitation from being
construed as a means-plus-function limitation in accordance with
section 112, paragraph 6); In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-
95, 29 USPQ 2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007