Appeal No. 2002-0161 Page 5
Application No. 09/348,615
capable of being mounted, in an upside-down orientation, such that the rear display
surface thereof is co-planar with the top surface 14 of the work table or platform 12.
Notwithstanding that Lechman does not teach positioning of the monitor 60
either in the upside-down orientation with its rear surface being co-planar with the top
surface 14 of the work table or platform 12 or in the inclined position at least partially
above the top surface 14 of the work table or platform, it does appear that the structure
pointed out by the examiner is capable of performing the function set forth in the
“means for ...” clause of appellant’s claim 13. This, however, is not the end of the
inquiry, as the “means for ...” clause which we have italicized in the reproduction of
claim 13, supra, is an expression of a means for performing a specified function (i.e.,
“mounting said display for movement relative to said work surface between a storage
position, wherein said display is within said recess and said rear display surface is
substantially co-planar with said work surface, and a viewing position, wherein said
display is inclined relative to and situated at least partially above said work surface”).
The sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 states:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
as a means or step for performing a specified function
without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof.
In order to meet a "means-plus-function" limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the
identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using the
structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007