Means-plus function language

Q) Means plus Function (variant of Q36 Door Handle)

Means plus function, determining equivalence

8/10/2007 Question asking how to determine equivalence in a means-plus-function situation.

Posed in the form: which of the following are in accord with MPEP.

I found MPEP 2183 to have the answers verbatim.

2183 MAKING A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EQUIVALENCE

If the examiner finds that a prior art element (A) performs the function specified in the claim,

(B) is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and

(C) is an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation, the examiner should provide

an explanation and rationale in the Office action as to why the prior art element is an equivalent.

Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are: (A) the prior

art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and

produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. …

(B) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element

shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification… (C) there are

insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in

the specification… (D) the prior art element is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element

disclosed in the specification…