by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2013 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
A rare example of a scenario in which a means-plus-function interpretation could have actually helped the applicant – and yet they still lost. While the court acknowledged that “the Board has on occasion overlooked particular procedural defaults,” it concluded...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 2, 2013 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
Another reminder to use means-plus-function claiming sparingly and with caution. The possibility that an ordinarily skilled artisan (e.g., expert witness) could find a structure that would work does not satisfy the disclosure requirements of means-plus-function...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 21, 2012 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
This case serves as a reminder that means plus function elements really do relate only to the structure actually disclosed, not everything within the purview of one of ordinary skill. For computer-implemented means plus function elements to satisfy the test for...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2012 | [sub] corresponding structure, [sub] printed publications, Means Plus Function, Prior Art
While a fact-specific analysis, an internet posting on a website probably qualifies as prior art if “an interested researcher [could have found it] using that website’s own search functions and applying reasonable diligence.” In the age of Google, this is probably not...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 23, 2012 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
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...
