Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
However, this is not such a case. The asserted
reissue claims are not materially narrower, despite
Hester's arguments to the contrary. Hester argues that
the claims are materially narrower by the addition of the
"spiral conveyance path" and "high humidity steam"
limitations. The term "high humidity steam" is included
in each of the asserted reissue claims except reissue
claim 30 of the '259 reissue patent. However, the term
"high humidity steam" is actually the same as or broader
than the limitation in original claim 1 that this term
replaced. Original claim 1 specifies a steam atmosphere
"at near 100% humidity 100° C and a pressure above
atmospheric." '047 patent, col. 6, ll. 3-4. Hester
concedes that the term "high humidity steam" is not
narrower than this limitation in original claim 1. In
fact, with respect to the claim construction issue,
Hester argues that the limitation in original claim 1 is
but one example of "high humidity steam." Accordingly,
the use of the term "high humidity steam" does not save
the reissue claims from the recapture rule.
The term "spiral conveyance path" is also not
materially limiting. This term appears explicitly in
asserted reissue claims 28, 32, 75, and 76 of the '259
reissue patent; it does not appear explicitly in the
other reissue claims asserted. Original claim 1 includes
a corresponding limitation, namely, "means passing said
conveyor belt through said housing. . . ." This is a
so-called means-plus-function clause drafted pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (1994). [Footnote omitted]. According
to § 112 ¶ 6, the clause is to be construed to "cover the
corresponding structure . . . described in the
specification and equivalents thereof." The only
corresponding structure described in the specification
(more properly, the written description of the patent)
passes the conveyor belt through a spiral path. See '047
patent, col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8. Thus, the
explicit recitation of a "spiral conveyance path" in some
of the asserted reissue claims does not materially narrow
those claims. Indeed, Hester does not explain how the
explicit recitation of a spiral conveyance path--which is
present in prior art cookers cited by the examiner during
the prosecution of the original patent--materially
narrows these claims. In sum, neither alone nor together
do the terms "high humidity steam" and "spiral conveyance
path" materially narrow the claims.
A-37
Page: Previous 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007