Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments


Archived updates for Thursday, August 11, 2005

'Means Hingedly Connecting' Is More than a Hinge under §112

In Beckson Marine, Inc., et al. v. NFM, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2005, non-precedential), the court construed "means hingedly connecting a window pane to a mounting flange" in U.S. Patent No. 4,363,350 (right) as means-plus-function language under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. The court was not persuaded that the phrase recited sufficient sufficient structure, material, or acts to overcome the presumption of means-plus-function treatment:

Indeed, claim 1 cites no structure limiting the "means hingedly connecting" language. The adverb "hingedly" doesnot recite sufficient structure despite Beckson Marine’s plea that "a hinge is a hinge, is a hinge!" The language "hingedly connecting" recites a function, not a particular defined structure. A "hinged connection" (already a stretch because this court has converted an active verb to a noun) could describe a vast number of movable links. Because claim 1 does not recite limited and definable structure performing the function of "hingedly connecting," this court affirms the district court’s construction of this language as a means-plus-function limitation.

Having identified the "specified function" of the unspecified means, the district court properly looked to the specification to define the structure corresponding to this claimed function. The only structure recited in the specification that corresponds to the "hingedly connecting" function follows:

There is also provided a molded plastic window pane 20, preferably transparent, which is hingedly connected to the mounting flange 12 as
shown in FIG. 1. The pane 20 includes a peripheral flange portion 22
having a pair of hinge lugs 24, 26 pivotally secured to cooperable hinge
lugs 32, 34, 36 by means of a spring-type hinge pin. A second pair
of hinge lugs 28, 30 is pivotally secured to cooperable hinge lugs
38, 40, 42 of the flange 12 by a hinge pin in the form of a screw 44 including a wing nut 46. ’350 patent, col. 3, ll. 19-28.

Nonetheless, the court then went on to conclude that this interpretation did not prevent the claim from reading on the accused device:

In its discussion regarding equivalents, the trial court denied infringement because, in part, "the hinge pins [in the accused device] are flattened or deformed at their ends to lock them into place, making them permanent." However, the district court’s claim construction affirmed by this court places no limit on the type of hinge pin covered by claim 1. This court finds that the "means hingedly connecting" element is literally present in the accused device. Any contrary finding by the district court was clear error.

    (1)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send    

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^Thanks!!

婚前徵信婚姻感情大陸抓姦外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚工商徵信婚前徵信外遇抓姦感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦離婚家暴工商徵信法律諮詢跟蹤工商徵信婚前徵信感情挽回外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴尋人大陸抓姦離婚大陸抓姦外遇尋人家暴工商徵信法律諮詢家暴感情挽回大陸抓姦外遇婚前徵信離婚尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信大陸抓姦尋人感情挽回外遇抓姦婚前徵信感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦工商徵信法律諮詢離婚家暴工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢離婚感情挽回婚前徵信外遇抓姦家暴尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回">徵大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢

April 07, 2009 4:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home