Ex Parte Williams - Page 9

               Appeal 2006-2721                                                                            
               Application 09/579,938                                                                      

                      The “means for” language in claims 1 and 5 specify a function                        
               without defining structure satisfying that function and thus, the strictures of             
               35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, apply.  See Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v.                   
               Telegenx, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1208, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1822-23 (Fed. Cir                      
               2002), and cases cited therein.  Therefore, these clauses must be limited to                
               the “corresponding structure” disclosed in the written description in the                   
               specification and “equivalents” thereof.4  In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d                     
               1189, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc)                           
               (“[T]he ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give                      
               means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in [35 U.S.C.                     
               § 112,] paragraph six.”).                                                                   



                                                                                                          
               4  The “corresponding structure” is that “structure in the written description              
               necessary to perform that function [citation omitted],” that is, “‘the                      
               specification . . . clearly links or associates that structure to the function              
               recited in the claims.’ [Citation omitted.]”  Texas Digital Sys., 308 F.3d at               
               1208, 64 USPQ2d at 1822-23.  “[A] section 112, paragraph 6 ‘equivalent[]’ .                 
               . . [must] (1) preform the identical function and (2) be otherwise                          
               insubstantially different with respect to structure. [Citations omitted.]”                  
               Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d                     
               1308, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  “[T]wo structures may be ‘equivalent’ for                  
               purposes of section 112, paragraph 6 if they perform the identical function,                
               in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result. [Citations               
               omitted.]” Kemco Sales, 208 F.3d at 1364, 54 USPQ2d at 1315.  The                           
               examiner should not confuse “impermissibly imputing limitations from the                    
               specification into a claim with properly referring to the specification to                  
               determine the meaning of a particular word or phrase recited in a claim.                    
               [Citations omitted.]”  Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; see                   


                                                    9                                                      

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013