Appeal No. 2002-0334 Page 4
Application No. 08/779,361
We interpret this argument to mean that the appellant is urging that this limitation is in
“means plus function format,” as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and as such it must
be interpreted to cover the structure disclosed in the specification and the equivalents
thereof.2 In construing a "means plus function" limitation a number of factors must be
considered, including the language of the claim, the specification, and the prosecution
history. Once such factors are weighed, the scope of the "means plus function"
limitation can be determined. See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778,
782, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
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. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d
1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12
USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Accordingly, in ascertaining that a "means-plus-
2 As explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994),
the USPTO is not exempt from following the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, which
reads:
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007