Computer-implemented means-plus-function claim invalid when no algorithm disclosed in specification In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment of invalidity of all claims of a patent indefinite. The claims had several means-plus-function clauses that were computer-implemented, however no algorithms for implementing the claimed functions were disclosed in the specification. The district court held the claims invalid because there was no "structure" (i.e., […] Continue Reading →
Sufficient structure recited in claim limitation using “means” to prevent application of – 112 – 6 In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's claim construction and the associated summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court held the relevant claim term was a means-plus-function limitation, as it used the word "means," as well as because in an interview summary in the prosecution history, it appeared the USPTO interpreted […] Continue Reading →
Statement during prosecution not a clear and unmistakable disavowal, no prosecution disclaimer In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit partially reversed a district court's summary judgment of noninfringement of a patent directed to closed circuit television systems. In granting summary judgment, the district court held that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer limited the scope of the claims, finding the inventors characterized the invention narrowly in response to […] Continue Reading →
Means-plus-function claim must recite some structure, “known equipment” not enough In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of invalidity of a several claims of a patent for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The patent specification did not describe a corresponding structure for the claim limitation "control means" as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but […] Continue Reading →