Appeal No. 2004-0918 Page 5
Application No. 09/715,547
describe performance of the claimed function. See Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1318, 50
USPQ2d at 1167.
Because the claimed "accommodating means" of claim 24 uses the word
"means," we presume that 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 applies. We next look to
whether the claimed "accommodating means" of claim 24 specifies a function. In
making this determination, we rely primarily on the claim language itself. See York
Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1624 (Fed. Cir.
1996). After reviewing the language of the claimed "accommodating means" of claim
24, we reach the determination that it specifies the function of accommodating within
the receiving space of the frame both (1) the audio or light mixer; and (2) the audio or
light effect device. In sum, the claimed "accommodating means" of claim 24 does
warrant interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6.
As explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49
(Fed. Cir. 1994), the USPTO is not exempt from following the statutory mandate of
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, which reads:
An 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007