Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 9
Application No. 09/063,050
“[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims
will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and limitations appearing in the
specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter,
756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellants’ claim 1 requires “a first means for receiving an
externally applied clock signal” and an “externally applied
control signal” wherein “first, second and third signals” are
outputted by the first means. We find that the “a first means
for receiving” limitation is in means-plus-function format. The
term “means” in this limitation creates a presumption that a
section 112, ¶ 6 interpretation is called for. In construing a
means-plus-function limitation, we must identify both the claimed
function and the corresponding structure in the written
description for performing that function. Under § 112, ¶ 6,
functional limitations that are not recited in the claim, or
structural limitations from the written description that are
unnecessary to perform the claimed function may not be imported
into the claims. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
194 F.3d 1250, 1258, 52 USPQ2d 1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007