Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
rendered obvious over any of Holland's involved claims, or (2)
that none of Holland's involved claims corresponding to the count
would have been anticipated by or rendered obvious over any of
Spears' own involved claims.
Claim 3 of party Spears and claim 21 of party Holland read
the same as each other, word for word, identically. Neither
claim includes any means-plus-function recitation which, under
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, potentially may mean different
things depending on the existence of any difference between
embodiments described in Spears' specification and Holland's
specification. In that regard, 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
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.
Junior party Spears argues, however, that claim 3 of party
Spears and claim 21 of party Holland include step-plus-function
recitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and thus
those limitations must be separately construed based on the
corresponding content of each party's own disclosure and
specification. In that regard, Spears' argument is reproduced
below:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007