Appeal No. 2006-0830
Application No. 09/911,954
step-plus-function format, requiring reference to the specification
to ascertain the specific meaning of such language within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. In construing a
means-plus-function limitation, as explained in In re Donaldson,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we
must identify both the claimed function and the corresponding
structure in the written description for performing that function.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, functional limitations
that are not recited in the claim, or structural limitations from
the written description that are unnecessary to perform the claimed
function may not be imported into the claims. Micro Chem., Inc. v.
Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258, 52 USPQ2d 1258, 1263
(Fed. Cir. 1999); citing Rodime PLC v. Seagate tech., Inc., 174
F.3d 1294, 1302, 50 USPQ2d 1429, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Specifically with regard to claims 4 and 5, appellant argues,
at page 9 of the principal brief, that Sobol does not teach or
suggest transforming the color components of a pixel when any of
the color components are greater than a threshold, and that Sobol
does not teach or suggest preserving the pixel when none of the
color components exceed the threshold because, in Sobol, it appears
that each color component is handled separately.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007