Appeal No. 2003-0598
Application 09/172,830
whether the “interlocking surface means” language in claim 1
constitutes a means plus function limitation invoking § 112,
¶ 6.2 The examiner further submits that even if the limitation
is interpreted to be in means plus function format as appears to
have been intended by the appellant,3 it would still be
indefinite because the underlying specification is not clear as
to what structure this limitation encompasses.
The question of whether the “interlocking surface means”
limitation in claim 1 is to be construed under § 112, ¶ 6,
arguably affects the scope of the limitation. In this case,
however, it does not bear on the definiteness of the claim.
Although the limitation lacks literal support in the underlying
specification as pointed out by the examiner, it clearly reads on
any of the binding structures shown in Figures 3 through 14, all
of which embody rigid part surface means adapted to interlock
with a binding of an alpine ski or in-line roller skate. Thus,
2 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, states that
[a]n 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.
3 See the remarks in Paper No. 27 accompanying the insertion of the word
“means” into the limitation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007