Although a functional-type block diagram may not be sufficient to impart corresponding structure to new or unique elements claimed in means-plus-function form, “when the structure or acts that perform the function would be well within the skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art, such functional-type block diagrams may be acceptable.” Further, for computer-implemented inventions, although “[t]he usage ‘algorithm’ has indeed become patent jargon, … it does not convert the established description requirements into the need for mathematical equations or software programs. The court has reaffirmed that § 112 ¶6 can be met by description in the form of ‘a mathematical formula, in prose, as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides structure.’ … The usage ‘algorithm’ does not add a new requirement to description under §112 ¶6.”
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to monitoring a supply chain of components in order to coordinate and stabilize the supply of components from various producers. Despite “page-after-page of text and flow-charts and block diagrams,” the district court held that all of the “means” terms in the system claims are inadequately supported by structure in the specification as required by § 112 ¶6, and thus that the system claims are invalid for indefiniteness under § 112 ¶2. However, the district court did not consider any evidence regarding how persons of skill in the art would understand the structure underlying the text, flow-charts, and block diagrams.
Issue(s): Whether the corresponding structure in the specification for means-plus-function elements as required by § 112 ¶6 must be interpreted in light of the knowledge of persons of skill in the art.
Holding(s): Yes. “Whether a patent adequately sets forth structure corresponding to a claimed function necessitates consideration of the disclosure of the specification from the viewpoint of one skilled in the art.” A patent may describe a system “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure,” and a court should not “overlook or reject … standard use of prose, diagrams, and flow charts.” This is important because “section 112 does not require the drafter ‘to encumber the specification’ with information known to a person of skill in the field of the invention; nor does section 112 require that the specification reproduce information routinely possessed by persons in the field of the invention.” Thus, “when the structure or acts that perform the function would be well within the skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art, … functional-type block diagrams may be acceptable and, in fact, preferable if they serve in conjunction with the rest of the specification to enable a person skilled in the art to make such a selection and practice the claimed invention with only a reasonable degree of routine experimentation.”