Appeal No. 2002-2026
Application No. 09/620,424
To determine the scope of a claim which qualified under
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, our reviewing court has set
forth a two-step test. Our reviewing court states
[a] two-step test should be employed to determine scope
of a means-plus-function claim: 1) identify the
function; 2) identify the corresponding structure.
Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix Inc.,
308 F.3d 1193, 1208, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The first step . . . is to identify the function of the
means-plus-function limitation. The next step is to
identify the corresponding structure in the written
description necessary to perform the function.
Citing Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
194 F.3d 1250, 1258, 52 USPQ2d 1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
As pointed out above, we have already identified the
function recited as the act of recovering data. We now must turn
to the specification to identify the corresponding structure.
Appellants have argued on page 10 of the brief that the
"means for recovering" includes the system processor programmed
in accordance with Figure 7 and the specification page 15, line 4
through page 16, line 14 and also includes the processor
programmed in accordance with Figure 11 and the specification
page 19, line 1 through page 21, line 1. When questioned at the
oral hearing, Appellants' attorney agreed to amend the
specification to make clear the structure that corresponds to the
recovery means for recovering the data. The proposed amendment
to the specification is attached to the opinion. The Board has
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007