Appeal 2006-2465
Application 10/266,052
The structures equivalent to the corresponding structures described in the
specification include those which
1) perform substantially the same function in substantially the same
way to produce substantially the same result, Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.
Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
2) have insubstantial differences, Valmount Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg.
Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042-44, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1453-56 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
3) are structurally equivalent, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and
4) a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as
interchangeable, Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d at 1316, 50
USPQ2d at 1165.
Here, the appealed claims recite various means plus function
limitations including “means for rotating,” “means for tilting,” and “means
for supporting.”
On the present record, Appellants, when addressing claim 23, have
argued the specific means-plus-function limitation (Br. 8). The record is not
clear whether the means-plus-function limitations invoke § 112, paragraph 6.
While the Appellants have identified the “means” clauses in the claim and
pointed to disclosure with respect thereto in the specification in the
Summary of Claimed Subject Matter in the Brief (Br. 2-5), it is not stated
therein whether the structure and materials so describe correspond to the
claimed function within the meaning of this statutory provision. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v) (2005). Thus, the Examiner is left to interpret the
claims with respect to the corresponding structures described in the
specification or equivalents thereof. If these means-plus-function limitations
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007