Appeal No. 2000-1801
Application No. 08/667,660
Referring to appellants’ specification to identify the
corresponding structure that performs the function specified in the
claims, we construe the “controller for . . .” to include a
computer (or equivalent) programmed to perform as claimed. See
page 5 of the specification. There is no dispute that the prior
art Celii reference does not teach or suggest a computer
specifically programmed to perform the particular functions defined
by appellants’ claims. The computer-controller of the Celii
reference may be capable of being so programmed, but this is not
tantamount to a disclosure of the same programming mode. In this
regard, a programmed computer is considered to be physically
different than the same computer without that program. In re
Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1400, 163 USPQ 611, 616 (CCPA 1969).
Looked at another way, the claim limitation in question is not
merely a statement of the intended use of the controller but,
rather, breathes life, meaning, and vitality into the claim since
there is direct and specific linkage in the claim between the
recited function of the controller and the limitation relating to
termination of the second growth species beam in response to the
calculation of a second target thickness by the controller. In
this regard, see Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478,
480-81 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional limitations
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007