Appeal No. 2005-1476 Page 4
Application No. 10/174,555
USPQ2d 1372,1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999), typically, if the word "means" appears in a claim
element in combination with a function, it is presumed to be a means-plus-function
element to which the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 applies. In this case, the term
"means" appears in combination with the function "connecting" and is thus presumed to
be a means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite disqualifying structure which would prevent
application of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Accordingly, the examiner erred in not
interpreting the "means connecting ..." limitation of claim 1 as a means-plus-function
recitation to which 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph applies.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the "means connecting ..."
limitation of claim 1 is construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the
appellant's specification and equivalents thereof. The structure disclosed in the
appellant’s specification for connecting the rear wall of the trash bag container to the
receptacle to position the rear wall of the container in abutting contacting relation with a
side wall of the receptacle is adhesive material such as epoxy or similar cementitious
material which adheres the rear wall of the container to a side wall of the receptacle.
The hanger member 36 of Waterston which secures the secondary receptacle 14 onto
the primary receptacle or wastebasket 12 is certainly not an adhesive. Furthermore, for
the reasons set forth on page 3 of the appellant’s reply brief, the hanger member 36 of
Waterston does not connect the rear wall of the secondary receptacle 14 to the side
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007