Appeal No. 2005-0894
Application No. 09/949,736
in B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43
UDPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
structure disclosed in the specification is
“corresponding” structure only if the specification or
prosecution history clearly links or associates that
structure to the function recited in the claim. This
duty to link or associate structure to function is the
quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, 6.
In other words,
the corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function
limitation must be disclosed in the written description
in such a manner that one skilled in the art will know
and understand what structure corresponds to the means
limitation. Otherwise, one does not know what the
claim means.3
The structures equivalent to the corresponding structure
described in the specification include those which
i) perform substantially the same function in substantially
the same way to produce substantially the same result, Odetics,
Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225,
1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
ii) have insubstantial differences, Valmount Indus. Inc., v.
Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042-44, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1453-56
(Fed. Cir. 1993);
3Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices Inc., 198 F.3d
1374, 1382, 53 USPQ2s 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007