Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
objects, functions in a substantially different manner to produce a
substantially different result from Appellant's container. Thus, according to
Appellant, Wolfe's cover member 22b is neither the structure described by
Appellant for storing objects nor an equivalent thereof. (Reply Br. 7-9.)
In order to meet a "means plus function" limitation, the prior art must
(1) perform the identical function recited in the means limitation and (2)
perform that function using the structure disclosed in the specification or an
equivalent structure. See Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc.,
15 F.3d 1573, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont
Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454
(Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d
1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Initially, we note that claim 16 does not recite a compartment for
storing objects. Rather, claim 16 recites a means for storing objects and
further recites that either the means for storing objects or the means for
enclosing the means for storing objects defines an internal space in which
the expandable structure can be manipulated. The functional language of
defining an internal space in which the expandable structure can be
manipulated is not part of the means plus function recitation of "means for
storing objects." Moreover, claim 16 does not even define the "objects" as
being different or distinct from the "means for providing an expandable
structure" recited in the claim.
The Examiner and Appellant appear to be in agreement that the
container 124, 900, 1100 or 1200 is the structure described in Appellant's
4 While both the Examiner (Ans. 8) and Appellant (Reply Br. 7) refer to
container 12, the reference numeral 10 refers to the container while
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013