Interference No. 1050
Second, claim I contains "means plus function" language in describing the cable
retaining means. However, the parties agree that the cable retaining members are
described with sufficient structural specificity so as not to implicate 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph. (Bourbeau Opposition 1, Paper 35, page 7, last 2 lines; Tarpill Reply 1,
Paper 41, page 4, line 15-18). We concur, noting that the simple recitation of cable
retaining "means" does not implicate Section 112, sixth paragraph. York Products, Inc
v. Central Tractor Farm and Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1623
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
The literal language of claim I requires that the opposing arcuate jaws be
supported for movement away from each other and toward each other. The claim further
literally requires the arcuate jaws be movable between cable receiving positions and cable
retaining positions. (Bourbeau, column 6, lines 1-7). Without an express intent to impart
a novel meaning to claim terms, an inventor's claim terms take on their ordinary meaning
Hoganas AB v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951, 28 USPQ2d 1936, 1938 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
By the use of the words "jaws supported for movement away from each other"
and "to a cable receiving position" we conclude that Bourbeau has described the
condition where each jaw is supported for some form of reciprocating motion between
the claimed cable receiving position and cable retaining position. This jaw structure and
function is entirely consistent with the specification. For example in Figure 8, and as
described at column 3, lines 10-21, all cable retaining members are described as
pivotably movable between cable retaining positions and cable receiving positions.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007