CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE v. INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) –Computer-implemented means-plus-function structure

by Steve Driskill | Apr 7, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

The algorithm definiteness inquiry for corresponding means-plus-function structure is not one of literal support but whether “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the algorithmic structure for performing the claimed function.” Even distinct but...

IN RE TELES AG INFORMATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Interpretation of recited function for means-plus-function elements

by Steve Driskill | Apr 4, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

The statutory requirement for importing the specification’s structural limitations into a means-plus-function element does not extend to or otherwise impact the interpretation of the recited function as claimed. “When construing functional claims under § 112 ¶ 6, the...

ELCOMMERCE.COM v. SAP AG (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Black box structure for well-known means-plus-function elements

by Steve Driskill | Feb 24, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

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...

RING & PINION SERVICE INC. v. ARB CORPORATION LTD (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Application of the doctrine of equivalents to means-plus-function limitations

by Steve Driskill | Feb 19, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, [sub] doctrine of equivalents, Claim Interpretation, Means Plus Function

“There is no … foreseeability limit on the doctrine of equivalents,” even for “the application of the doctrine of equivalents for means-plus-function limitations.” Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to an improved automobile locking...

ENOCEAN GMBH v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORP (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Means-plus-function interpretation of and priority disclosure requirements for a “receiver”

by Steve Driskill | Jan 31, 2014 | [sub] invocation, [sub] priority, Formal Requirements, Means Plus Function

A “receiver” is reasonably well understood in the art as a name for a structure which performs the recited function. “The term ‘receiver’ (i.e., [in] the absence of the term means) presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art” to...

VISTAN CORPORATION v. FADEI USA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Extrinsic evidence supporting intrinsic means-plus-function structures

by Steve Driskill | Dec 3, 2013 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

While it is true that means-plus-function elements are interpreted narrowly as covering the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification, extrinsic evidence may be brought in to show that one skilled in the art would recognize that structure within the...