Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 29
Application No. 10/039,338
are not ribs) would not be considered to fall within the scope of appellants' invention as
presented in the application as originally filed.
The "traction means" limitation of claims 18 to 22 and 254 is a means-plus-
function limitation and must be construed, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and
equivalents thereof. In light of the above, it is apparent to me that the corresponding
structure for the “traction means” described in appellants' specification is ribs/ridges and
only ribs/ridges. It is equally apparent to me that the original written description
expressly excluded from the scope of the invention protrusions that are not ribs/ridges,
that is, protrusions not having a crest that is at least one line. Consequently, for the
reasons articulated on pages 17 through 20 of the majority’s decision, appellants'
application as originally filed fails to provide written description support, as required in
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for any type of protrusion which would not meet
appellants' definition of rib or ridge.
4Claims 23 and 24 further recited that the traction means comprise ribs and thus
are not construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The use of the term "means"
does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, when it is modified by structure for
performing the function. See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294,
1303-04, 50 USPQ2d 1429, 1435-36 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007