Appeal 2006-1217
Application 10/781,272
orienting the refractory body in a narrow end downward position if the
refractory body is misaligned, wherein the means for orienting is retained by
the hollow chamber . . . . ” Claim 14 recites “a means for aligning the
refractory body in the metal pouring vessel during at least a portion of the
metal pour without substantially obstructing the flow of molten metal
through the discharge nozzle, wherein the means for aligning is retained by
the hollow chamber . . . . ”
When the claimed elements are defined by means-plus-function
limitations, we must interpret them as being limited to the corresponding
structures described in the specification and the equivalents thereof
consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16
F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc). The
specification must disclose the corresponding structures of the claimed
means-plus-function limitations in such a manner that one skilled in the art
would know and understand what structures correspond to the claimed
means-plus-function limitations. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage
Devices Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The structures disclosed in the specification, for example, are considered
“corresponding” to the means-plus-function limitations “if the specification
or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007