Appeal No. 2004 1681
Application No. 09/749,216
not explain how it does not result in a different structure.
We therefore reverse the rejection.
Hence, we reverse the rejection of claim 10 (and we
reverse the rejection of the dependent claims of claim 10,
which are 11, 12, 13, and 17-20).
Claim 22
With regard to claim 22, appellant sets forth his
argument on pages 17-19 of the brief. Appellant argues that
claim 22 is a means for performing a function as defined
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. Appellant argues that
the structure to which the electrode means of claim 22
relates should be interpreted in light of the specification.
Appellant states that the specification does not relate to an
electrode located in an insulating housing (as in Schwalm)
but to an electrode affixed or deposited substantially
directly on the wallplate. Brief, page 18.
The use of means without the recitation of a definite
structure in support of the recited function creates a
presumption that the inventor used the term advisedly to invoke
the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. Sage Prods., Inc.
v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427, 44 USPQ2d 1103, 1109
(Fed. Cir. 1997). When 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 is invoked, it
requires us to look to the specification and interpret the
claimed means plus function language as of the corresponding
structure described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the
extent that the specification provides such disclosure. 35
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007