Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
limitation, we would be limiting process claims in a
manner never intended by Congress. (Emphasis added.)
Also, even if the recitations in a method claim "parallel" those
in apparatus claims which are subject to means-plus-function
construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, that does
not mean, necessarily, that the steps in the method claim are
step-plus-function recitations under § 112, sixth paragraph. Id.
Each claim must be independently reviewed in order to determine
if it is subject to the requirements of section 112, 1 6. Epson
Gas Systems Inc., 61 USPQ2d at 1475; 0.1. Corp., 115 F.3d at
1583, 42 USPQ2d at 1782.
In Epson Gas Systems Inc., 61 USPQ2d at 1475, the Federal
Circuit reasoned that claim 2 at issue there includes no words
indicating step-plus-function form, such as "step for," and
determined that "[cllaim 2 is a garden variety process claim."
Similarly, in this case, claim 3 of junior party Spears and claim
21 of senior party Holland each include no words indicating step
plus-function form, such as "step for," and represent a garden
variety process claim. Party Spears has not provided a
meaningful explanation as to why the following two clauses of its
claim 3 and Holland's claim 21 are not simply ordinary method
steps:
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007