Using a functional modifier attached to elements such as a “mechanism” or an equivalent term commonly used to designate structure can be sufficient to avoid a means-plus-function construction. Further, the Federal Circuit specifically noted the distinction between a “means” element having limited construction and a more general “class of structures that are generally understood to persons of skill in the art” denoted by the term “mechanism” and the like. (In my mind, “circuit” is the electrical equivalent to the mechanical term “mechanism.”) This is a great case to consult the next time an Examiner tries to read non-“means” terms as means-plus-function limitations, often while rejecting them as indefinite.
Background / Facts: The patent under reexamination here describes a mobile computer workstation intended for medical care environments, having “a height adjustment mechanism” for its the horizontal tray table. For reasons I can only assume relate to a targeted infringer and not wanting to absolve them of past infringement, Flo chose not to amend certain claims during the reexamination and to instead argued that the “height adjustment mechanism” limitation is a means-plus-function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, with a corresponding structure in the written description including a length-adjustable vertical beam not found in the prior art.
Issue(s): Whether the “height adjustment mechanism” limitation must be interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Holding(s): No. “’Our cases make clear … that the presumption flowing from the absence of the term ‘means’ is a strong one that is not readily overcome.’ … When the claim drafter has not signaled his intent to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 by using the term ‘means,’ we are unwilling to apply that provision without a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure. … Thus, we will not apply § 112, ¶ 6 if the limitation contains a term that ‘is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure.’” Here, although the generic term “mechanism” standing alone may connote no more structure than the term “means,” the surrounding claim language “height adjustable” that further defines the mechanism adds sufficient structure to avoid a § 112 ,¶ 6 construction. “[A] drafter’s decision to define ‘a particular mechanism … in functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term into a ‘means for performing a specified function’ within the meaning of section 112(6)’ because ‘[m]any devices take their names from the functions they perform.”