Appeal 2007-0874
Application 10/130,255
“Summary of claimed subject matter” section of the Brief.1 Specifically, 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(v) states in relevant part:
[E]very means plus function and step plus function as permitted
by 35 U.S.C. [§] 112, sixth paragraph, must be identified and
the structure, material, or acts described in the [S]pecification
as corresponding to each claimed function must be set forth
with reference to the [S]pecification by page and line number,
and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters.
This requirement is consistent with the holdings of B. Braun Med., Inc. v.
Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
and Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Device, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382,
53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott
Labs., 124 F.3d at 1424, 43 USPQ2d at 1900 states that:
[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. [Emphasis added.]
Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Device, Inc., 198 F.3d at 1382, 53
USPQ2d at 1230 also states that:
[T]he corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function
limitation must be disclosed in the written description in such a
manner that one skilled in the art will know and understand
1 The Appellants appear to assert in the Argument section of the Brief that
the claimed specific means-plus-function limitations may correspond to
heaters. This assertion still is problematic for two reasons. First, the term
“heater” is not the structure of an apparatus; it only connotes a heating
function. Second, the Specification page and line numbers are not referred
to show that the Specification supports this interpretation consistent with
Information Storage Device, Inc. and Abbott Labs.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013