Appeal No. 2002-2026
Application No. 09/620,424
issue for us to decide is whether the word "recovery" before the
word "means" defines structure.
Our reviewing court, when considering the issue of whether
"perforation means . . . for tearing" defines structure or
function, the court stated
"[t]o invoke [35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph]
statute, the alleged means-plus-function claim element
must not recite a definite structure which performs the
described function." See Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
102 F.3d 524, 531, 41 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (Fed. Cir.
1996). To make this determination, the court turned to
a dictionary to confirm the ordinary meaning of
"perforation." Id.
Turning to Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College
Edition copyright 1998, page 1112 we find that the definition of
recovery is "the act or an instance of recovery."3 From the
ordinary meaning of "recovery," we find that the term only
recites the function of the act of recovering which is to get
back something that is lost. Because the element "recovery means
for recovering the data from the disc" does not recite any
structure for recovering the data, we find that the claimed
element must be properly treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph.
3 A copy of the appropriate pages of the Webster New World
Dictionary is included as an attachment to this opinion.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007