Appeal No. 2001-1211
Application No. 09/070,580
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 8 requires “position means, operably
coupled to the head, for positioning the head adjacent the tracks
of the disc.” We note that the “position means” limitation is in
means-plus-function format that creates a presumption that a
section 112, ¶ 6 interpretation is called for. In construing a
means-plus-function limitation, as explained in In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir.
1994), we must identify both the claimed function and the
corresponding structure(s) in the written description for
performing that function.
Appellants direct us to digital signal processor 148 and
memory 150 as the elements included in the structure of the servo
circuit in their specification which corresponds to the claimed
“position means” (oral hearing and brief, page 10). After
reviewing the specification, we find that, as noted by Appellants
(id.), servo circuit 144 controls the position of each head and
is described to include demodulator 146, digital signal processor
148 and memory 150. In order to position a head, the processor
uses the servo information conditioned by the demodulator and
provides a current command signal according to the associated
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007