Appeal No. 2006-0650 Page 14
Application No. 10/007,613
Independent claims 39, 56, 71, 80, and 82 recite “means for heating” and “means for
exposing.” These are means-plus-function limitations, where the function is “heating”
and “exposing,” respectively.
When a claim limitation is expressed in means-plus-function language and does
not recite definite structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C.
§112, ¶ 6. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896,
1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, mandates that ‘such a claim limitation ‘be
construed to cover the corresponding structure ... described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.’” Id. Accordingly, when faced with means-plus-function limitations,
courts “must turn to the written description of the patent to find the structure that
corresponds to the means recited in the [limitations].” Id. “If one employs means plus
function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate
disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an
adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.”
In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in
banc). See also Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376, 58 USPQ2d
1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d
1106, 1115-18, 63 USPQ2d 1725, 1731-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Although the claims contain means-plus-function language, no support can be
found in the specification for structures which correspond to these means. Accordingly,
we find the claims to be indefinite under § 112, second paragraph.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007