Appeal No. 2005-0171 Application No. 10/064,380 every process claim containing steps described by an ‘ing’ verb, such as passing, heating, reacting, transferring, etc., into a step-plus-function, we would be limiting process claims in a manner never intended by Congress.” See O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar, 115 F.3d 1576, 1583, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit has also recognized, as is the case here, that the absence of explicit “step for” language in the claims does not automatically prevent a limitation from being construed as a step-plus-function limitation. “[C]laim elements without express step-plus-function language may nevertheless fall within Section 112, Para. 6 if they merely claim the underlying function without recitation of acts for performing that function. See Seal-Flex Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Construction, 172 F.3d 836, 850, 50 USPQ2d 1225, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Court in Seal-Flex, 172 F.3d at 849, 50 USPQ2d at 1234 provided guidance as to how to interpret process claims that may lack explicit step-plus-function language as follows: In general terms, the “underlying function” of a method claim element corresponds to what that element ultimately accomplishes in relationship to what the other elements of the claim and the claim as a whole accomplish. “Acts,” on the other hand, correspond to how the function is accomplished. Therefore, claim interpretation focuses on what the 16Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007