Appeal No. 2004-0021 Page 6
Application No. 09/246,193
relative to said second plate" is not disclosed in Oda. We agree for the reasons which
follow..
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).
In our view, the claimed "means for simultaneously rotating said first and second
plate and translating said first plate relative to said second plate" requires the rotation of
the first and second plates and the translation of the first plate relative to the second
plate to occur simultaneously. In that regard, we view the term simultaneously as used
in the claimed means clause to modify both rotating and translating. Thus, we do not
agree with the examiner that the term simultaneously as used in the claimed means
clause modifies the verb rotating and does not modify the verb translating. Accordingly,
Oda does not perform the identical function recited in the means clause since Oda
does not disclose the rotation of the first and second plates (i.e., objective grid array 22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007