Appeal No. 2004-0918 Page 4
Application No. 09/715,547
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The appellant argues in the brief that claim 24 is not anticipated by Siklos or
Benson since they do not disclose the claimed "accommodating means" (i.e., means
provided within the frame for accommodating the audio or light mixer and the audio or
light effect device in the receiving space). We agree.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has established a framework for
determining whether an element of a claim invokes means-plus-function treatment. See
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1314, 1318, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir.
1999); Sage Prods. Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427, 44 USPQ2d 1103,
1109 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If the word "means" appears in a claim element in association
with a function, the presumption is that 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 applies. See id.
This presumption collapses, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure,
material, or acts to perform the claimed function. See id. Without the term "means," a
claim element is presumed to fall outside means-plus-function strictures. See id. Once
again, however, that presumption can collapse when an element lacking the term
"means" nonetheless relies on functional terms rather than structure or material to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007