Posts Tagged: "functional limitations"

Means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within the body of the claim itself… If there is no structure in the specification the person of skill in the art cannot save the disclosure by understanding what the drafter intended to be covered by the means plus function limitation in the claims. Thus, means-plus-function claims are valid at the mercy of the specification, and only to the extent that the specification contains support for the structures that define the means… The Federal Circuit does not blindly elevate form over substance when evaluating whether a particular claim limitation invokes means treatment. See Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We do not mean to suggest that section 112(6) is triggered only if the claim uses the word ‘means.’”).

Because it is clear when infringement occurs, and the scope of the claims is reasonably certain, the Court reversed the judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness… Claims having functional elements are not indefinite, as encompassing both an apparatus and a method, if they make clear whether infringement occurs upon creating the apparatus or upon its use. A claim with functional language clearly tied to a structure that defines its capabilities is an apparatus claim; such functional language does not make the claim indefinite by also claiming a method of use.

MindGeek and Playboy filed an IPR petition. The Board determined that § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply because “‘wireless device means’ is not purely functional language, but rather is language that denotes structure.” In the alternative, Skky argued that the “wireless device means” term should be construed to require multiple processors or a specialized processor. The Board found Skky’s alternative argument unconvincing. The claims were held invalid in light of prior art that disclosed a “wireless device means,” specifically a cell phone. Skky appealed.

First, every patent claim needs a preamble, which is the introductory phrase in a claim… Second, every patent claim needs a transition. The most common transitions are: “comprising” and “consisting of” … Third, the first time you introduce a limitation you MUST introduce it with either “a” or “an”, as is grammatically appropriate… Below in an example of an independent claim that applies the above stated three simple rules, which is taken from U.S. Patent No. 6,009,555, titled Multiple component headgear system.

One of the biggest mistakes I see inventors make is they spend too much time talking about what the invention does and very little time explaining what the invention is and how it operates to deliver the functionality being described. Many inventors also make the mistake of only very generally describing their invention. If that is you then you are already light on specifics, which is extremely dangerous in and of itself. But the other problem I want to discuss is the flip side of the coin. It is important to be specific, but not just specific.

In this issue of the Federal Circuit Review: (1) A Patent Owner Must Show They Are Entitled to Amended Claims In an Inter Partes Review, Including in View Of All Prior Art of Record, and Known to the Patent Owner; (2) Federal Circuit Reverses Every E.D. Va. Claim Construction on Appeal in TomTom v. Adolph Mobile Tracking System Suit; and (3) Federal Circuit Overrule the “Strong Presumption” Embodied in § 112 para. 6 for Functional Limitations Expressed Without the Term “Means.”

The opinion focused on whether adequate structure corresponding to the “coordinating” function is disclosed in the specification. After determining that a special purpose computer is required to perform the function, the court searched for an algorithm for performing the function, but did not find one. The court rejected Williamson’s argument that the distributed learning control module controls communications among the various computer systems and that the “coordinating” function provides a presenter with streaming media selection functionality. The disclosures relied upon by Williamson were thought of by the court as merely functions of the distributed learning control module and opined that the specification does not set forth an algorithm for performing the claimed functions.

Functional claim language is increasingly being used by practitioners to capture the metes and bounds of an invention, especially in computer-implemented inventions. Sometimes using functional language in a claim limitation is unavoidable. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper. However, as recently experienced in Williamson v. Citrix (en banc) and Robert Bosch, using functional language carries a significant risk of having the claim invalidated as indefinite following a determination that the claim invokes § 112(f) even when the patentee does not intend to have the claim treated under § 112(f).