Appeal No. 2001-0041
Application No. 08/661,899
specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference
characters.”
Since appellant claims a “data card” (e.g., Fig. 1, element 1010), the
“maintenance scheduling means” must refer to data on the card. However, we do not
find an entry on any of the disclosed embodiments of the card that performs the
function specified by the claim 19 “means.” Additionally, it is unclear how data per se
may be in any sense “responsive” to other data per se -- i.e., responsive to “a
permanent history of maintenance event information.”
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises those
of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Lack of any structure in the disclosure corresponding to
the “means” indicates that the claims fail to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. See, e.g., Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374,
1381-82, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 944-46,
42 USPQ2d 1881, 1883-85 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We do not find any structure disclosed
which may correspond to the claimed “maintenance scheduling means.”
Instant claim 40 sets forth, in a data card, “regulatory compliance scheduling
means for indicating whether regulatory compliance events have been performed on
said at least one specific machine responsive to said permanent history.” We do not
find any structure disclosed which may correspond to the claimed “regulatory
compliance scheduling means.” Moreover, it is unclear how data per se -- the “means
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007