A “means-plus-function” clause is used for describing technical features in product patent claims. The expression of such clause is “ . . . means for doing . . . ,“ while the specification of the same patent shall simultaneously provide structures or materials that correspond to the function recited in the means-plus-function clause of the claim. (See Patent Examination Guidelines, Page 2-9-18.) To determine whether a claim contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function clause, the Patent Examination Guidelines provides:

   Claim 1 of the patent at dispute states that, “. . . ‘so that’ when the claimed invention is used, the circuit device thereof can drive the air cell and heating device to perform the ‘function’ of expanding, contracting or generating heat; wherein a controller was used to predetermine the sequence of the actions. On the whole the claimed invention delivers to human eyes multiple ‘effects,’ such as periodical expanding/contracting massage, heat therapy and vibrating massage,” which relates to functionality. But the present claim is not using a “means for . . .” clause to identify technical features of a specific function. Furthermore, Claim 1 clearly and completely recites the structural features for performing the functions of periodical, expanding/contracting massage, heat therapy and vibrating massage. The recited structure is sufficient for carrying out such functions, and the statement is in a completed form. The disputed clause is therefore not a means-plus-function clause. The appellant erroneously asserted that the disputed claim is a means-plus-function claim. As a result, the interpretation of the claim 1 should be based on the claim itself (including the structures and functions it contains), rather than the structures, materials, or actions described in the specification, or the equivalents thereof.