Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
defined by appealed claims 1 and 7 (e.g., see the paragraph
bridging pages 5 and 6, and especially the first full sentence on
page 6, of the Answer). However, we agree with the appellant
(e.g., see the last paragraph on page 6 of the Brief) that the
examiner has not provided an adequate basis for his finding that
Hopper discloses, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, the claim 1 requirement “first connector means for
releasably interconnecting said first and second frame halves
when said second frame half is in the ship orientation” or the
claim 7 requirement “first connector means unitary with said
first and second frame halves for releasably interconnecting said
first and second frame halves.”
The aforequoted claim limitations are in means-plus-
function format. Thus, in accordance with the sixth paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner must look to the specification and
construe the “means” language as limited to the corresponding
structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.
In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850
(Fed. Cir. 1994). The first step in construing such a limita-
tion is to identify the function of the means-plus-function
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007