It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language. Here, for example, a dedicated ethernet path claimed as providing a microcontroller module with a connection “to remotely poll” various components was found to require that the microcontroller actually be configured for remote polling, rather than simply capable of such configuration. “[M]eaning should be given to all of a claim’s terms.” This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to an examiner’s interpretation of functional language in an apparatus claim as not warranting patentable weight.
Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from IPR proceedings at the PTO is directed to a computer-network appliance containing a number of hot-swappable components, meaning that those components can be removed and replaced without turning off or resetting the computer system as a whole. The claims recite a microcontroller module and a dedicated ethernet path, “wherein the dedicated ethernet path … provides the microcontroller module with a connection to remotely poll [various components].”
Issue(s): Whether the claim language requires that that the microcontroller actually be configured for remote polling, rather than simply noting the existence of an ethernet path that would provide a connection for polling if the microcontroller were configured for, and engaged in, remote polling.
Holding(s): Yes. “The Board’s reading of [the] claim [to the contrary] denies any substantial meaning to ‘remotely poll.’ [] The Board’s construction treats the claim as if it said simply that the ethernet path ‘provides the microcontroller module with a connection to the [various components].’ Such a connection could be used for a wide range of communications, including remote polling. But the claim calls out one specific kind of communication. It is unreasonable to deny effect to the ‘remotely poll’ language, which naturally indicates that the microcontroller module is actually configured to communicate in that way.”