Appeal 2006-2465
Application 10/266,052
terms in the claims consistent with the Appellants’ specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
When the terms in the claims are written in a “means-plus-function” format,
however, we interpret them as the corresponding structures described in the
specification or equivalents thereof consistent with § 112, sixth paragraph.
In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (en banc). This interpretation is appropriate only if the claimed
means-plus-function elements do not include sufficient structural limitations
for performing the claimed functions, thus invoking § 112, paragraph 6. Al-
Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1319, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1167
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
As stated by our reviewing court in B. Braun Med., Inc., v. Abbott
Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’
structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly
links or associates that structure to the function recited in the
claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the
quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, 6.
In Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382,
53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999), our reviewing court further stated
that the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
requires that
the corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function
limitation . . . [is] disclosed in the written description in such
a manner that one skilled in the art will know and
understand what structure corresponds to the means
limitation. Otherwise, one does not know what claim
means. (Emphasis added.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007