TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Black box element requires articulated and distinct structure for means-plus-function interpretation

by Steve Driskill | Dec 8, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

Although a means-plus-function element may be illustrated in black box form, the corresponding structure must be clearly articulated in the specification—the black box itself is not sufficient—and clearly distinguished from other embodiments in order to provide...

WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – (1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” indicate that a feature is not required & (2) the term “module” connotes either hardware or software structure and is not a nonce word per se

by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2014 | [sub] importing limitations, [sub] invocation, Claim Interpretation, Means Plus Function

(1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” may be used in the specification to indicate that a particular feature is not required. Here, for example, the disclosure of an “exemplary” display that “preferably” depicts a classroom map was found to...

ROBERT BOSCH, LLC v. SNAP-ON INCORPORATED (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Solely functional descriptions in specification are insufficient to link a claim element to any particular structure

by Steve Driskill | Oct 14, 2014 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

Solely functional descriptions of non-well-known claim elements in the specification are not sufficient to link them to any particular structure and therefore require invocation of a means-plus-function interpretation. Here, for example, the lack of any structural...

TRITON TECH OF TEXAS, LLC v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Classes of algorithms are not corresponding structure for means-plus-function elements

by Steve Driskill | Jun 13, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

“Disclosure of a class of algorithms that places no limitations on how values are calculated, combined, or weighted is insufficient to make the bounds of the claims understandable [under the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)].” Further, the fact that a...

APPLE INC. v. MOTOROLA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Contextual aspects of a claim element as connoting sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function interpretation

by Steve Driskill | Apr 25, 2014 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

This now appears to be the seminal case regarding invocation of means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. In summing up the case law to this point, it states that “[t]hese cases teach that, if a limitation recites a term with a known structural...

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH v. VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Computer-implemented means-plus-function algorithm structure breadth

by Steve Driskill | Apr 10, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

For computer-implemented means-plus-function elements relying on algorithm structure, “[t]he algorithm need only include what is necessary to perform the claimed function.” It “[does] not need to include every possible implementation of the function, so long as it...