Appeal 2007-1098
Application 10/026,059
1 more heat is required to raise the material’s temperature. We agree with that
2 interpretation and will adopt the same meaning for the term “thermal mass.” For
3 instance, surrounding an electrical component with a thermo insulator does not
4 increase its thermal mass, but applying a metal casing to the electrical component
5 does because the metal casing absorbs heat emanating from the electrical
6 component (FF. 5).
7 Two functional clauses from within claims 1 and 15 are reproduced below:
8 In claim 1:
9 structure that surrounds the enclosure and that reduces a thermal drift
10 of the electronic component by increasing a thermal mass of the
11 electronic component.
12
13 In claim 15:
14 structure that surrounds the enclosure and that reduces a thermal drift
15 of the crystal component by increasing a thermal mass of the crystal
16 component.
17
18 The above-quoted clauses from independent claims 1 and 15 ostensibly
19 cover anything which surrounds an enclosure and reduces thermal drift by
20 increasing a component’s thermal mass. No real structure is recited, and the
21 limitation is in its entirety functional, contrary to the prohibition articulated by the
22 Supreme Court in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 71
23 USPQ 175 (1946). In Halliburton, the Supreme Court held invalid an apparatus
24 claim on the ground that it used a “means-plus-function” term which was purely
25 functional. Such a claim was deemed improper because the means term with a
26 stated function merely described a particular end result, did not set forth any
27 specific structure, and would encompass any and all structures for achieving that
28 result, including those which were not what the applicant had invented.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013