2183
BOND
[T]his court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
BROWN
As the predecessor to our reviewing court has explained, “[w]hether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 59 CCPA 1036, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).”
DONALDSON, KEMPCO
For a prior art element to satisfy a means-plusfunction limitation, as permitted by former 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the prior art element must either be the same as the disclosed structure or be an “equivalent[] thereof.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Two structures are “equivalent” within the meaning of the statute if they “perform the identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added).
DONALDSON, ODETICS
See also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“the broadest reasonable interpretation that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.”). Equivalence under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph requires “[f]unctional identity and either structural identity or equivalence.” Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp., 185 F. 3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
GRAVER TANK
see also Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950) ("In determining equivalents, things equal to the same thing may not be equal to each other .... Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent ... and the function which it is intended to perform.").
VALMONT
“[T]he ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.” In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). In other words, 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. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
IF NONEQUIVALENCE SHOWN, EXAMINER MUST CONSIDER OBVIOUSNESS