Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 6
Application No. 10/051,573
A claim limitation will be interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitations must use the phrase “means for” or “step for;”
(B) the “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language;
and
(C) the phrase “means for” or “step for” must not be modified by sufficient
structure, material or acts for achieving the specified function.
M.P.E.P. § 2181, 8th ed. (August 2001).
The “equipment cabinet means,” “housing means,” and “device means”
elements of claim 15 fail the third prong of this test, because each element contains
a recitation of the structure for performing the recited function. Specifically,
“equipment cabinet means” recites the structure of an “equipment cabinet” that
performs the recited function of “defining at least one device opening therein.”
Similarly, “housing means” recites the structure of a “housing” that performs the
recited function of “housing at least one component of said device means.” And,
“device means” recites the structure of a “device” that performs the recited
function of “defining at least one mounting pathway therein.” See Cole v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531, 41 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (holding “perforation means . . . for tearing” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim describes the structure supporting the tearing
function (i.e., perforation)).
We find that the recitation of “support means for engaging said at least one
mounting pathway” properly invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. For
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007