means-plus-function : CAFC Alert

Prosecution Refreshers – Incorporating Foreign Priority Application by Reference, Translations, Means-Plus-Function

| October 7, 2021

Team Worldwide Corp. v. Intex Recreation Corp.

Decided September 9, 2021

Opinion by: Chen, Newman, and Taranto

Summary

            The claimed “pressure controlling assembly” was found to be a means-plus-function claim element.  Because the specification did not disclose any corresponding structure to perform at least one of the associated functions for this pressure controlling assembly, the claim was held to be indefinite.  The specification did not disclose any corresponding structure because the portions of the foreign priority application (that disclosed corresponding structure) were omitted in the US application, and there was no incorporation by reference of the foreign priority application. 

Procedural History

This is a non-precedential Federal Circuit decision for an appeal from a PTAB post-grant review (PGR) decision.  Intex petitioned for a PGR on Team Worldwide’s USP 9,989,979 patent (filed Aug. 29, 2014).  The ‘979 patent is a divisional application of an earlier pre-AIA application.  The ‘979 patent, filed after the March 16, 2013 effective date for AIA, is subject to AIA’s PGR unless each claim is supported in its pre-AIA parent application under 35 USC §112(a) for written description support and enablement.  However, the earlier pre-AIA application at least did not have written description support for the claimed “pressure controlling assembly.”  Thus, the ‘979 patent was subject to AIA’s post-grant review.  The PTAB held that “pressure controlling assembly” is a means-plus-function (MPF) claim element subject to interpretation under 35 USC §112(f) and the ‘979 claims are invalid as indefinite under 35 USC §112(b) because there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for at least one of the claimed functions thereof.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.

Background

            The ‘979 patent relates to an inflator for an air mattress. Representative claim 1:

            1. An inflating module adapted to an inflatable object comprising an inflatable body, the inflating module used in conjunction with a pump that provides primary air pressure and comprising:

            a pressure controlling assembly configured to monitor air pressure in the inflatable object after the inflatable body has been inflated by the pump; and

            a supplemental air pressure providing device,

            wherein the pressure controlling assembly is configured to automatically activate the supplemental air pressure providing device when the pressure controlling assembly detects that the air pressure inside the inflatable object decreases below a predetermined threshold after inflation by the pump, and to control the supplemental air pressure providing device to provide supplemental air pressure to the inflatable object so as to maintain the air pressure of the inflatable object within a predetermined range.

            The ‘979 patent describes the pressure controlling assembly almost exclusively in functional terms, including the functions recited in claim 1.  There is one sentence that states “[a]fter the supplemental air pressure providing device is in a standby mode, a pressure controlling assembly 121/122 as described starts monitoring air pressure in the inflatable object” (col. 4, lines 48-51).  No explanation is provided about elements 121/122 shown in Fig. 2a:

            Both the ‘979 and its parent application (having the same specification) claim foreign priority from CN 201010186302.  However, neither US application incorporates the CN ‘302 application by reference.

            According to a translation of CN ‘302 application, CN ‘302 does describe an “air pressure control mechanism” that includes “air valve plate 121” and “chamber 122” which move in response to changing air pressure within the attached inflatable device.  CN ‘302 further describes a switch 13, see Fig. 1 (same drawings in both CN ‘302 and the ‘979 patent and its parent):

            According to CN ’302, as translated, “[w]hen the air pressure value inside the inflatable product is greater than the reset mechanism’s preset value, the air pressure control mechanism shifts upward, the second switch 13 is closed by the projection pressing against it, and the automatic reinflation mechanism halts reinflation” and “[w]hen the air pressure value inside the inflatable product is less than the reset mechanism’s preset value, the air pressure control mechanism shifts downward, the projection is removed from second switch 13 causing it to disconnect, and the automatic reinflation mechanism starts reinflation.”

            Neither the ‘979 patent, nor its parent application, includes the above-noted structures of an air valve plate for reference number 121 nor the chamber for reference number 122.  Neither US applications mention any switch 13 nor the above-noted operations involving the switch 13 for starting or stopping reinflation.  Reference number 13 is not at all described in the ‘979 specification, nor in its parent’s specification.

            The court also noted that the original specification in both the ‘979 patent and its parent application did not even mention reference numbers 121 and 122.  It was added to the specification during prosecution to overcome an Examiner’s drawing objection for including those reference numbers in a drawing that were not described in the specification.

MPF Primers

  • If a claim does not recite the word “means,” it creates a rebuttable presumption that §112(f) does not apply.
    • A presumption against applying §112(f) is overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.”  Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).

Decision

            Claim construction is reviewed de novo, considering the intrinsic record, i.e., the claims, specification, and prosecution history, and any extrinsic evidence. 

            For the claim itself, like the word “means,” the word “assembly” is a generic nonce word.  “Like the claim term ‘mechanical control assembly’ in MTD Products, ‘the claim language reciting what the [pressure] control[ing] assembly is ‘configured to” do is functional,’ and thus the claim format supports applicability of §112(f).” 

            As for the specification, the court agrees with the PTAB that the specification’s “mere reference to items 121 and 122, without further description, does not convey that the term ‘pressure controlling assembly’ itself connotes sufficient structure.”  The court also noted that the specification does not indicate that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer to define the “pressure controlling assembly” to be a structural term.

            As for the prosecution history, the fact that the examiner cited prior art pressure sensors as disclosing the claimed “pressure controlling assembly” does not establish that the term itself connotes structure.  While a pressure sensor may perform some of the functions of the “pressure controlling assembly,” the examiner’s reliance on a pressure sensor says nothing about the term itself connoting structure.  The court also rejected giving weight to the fact that the examiner did not apply §112(f) for interpreting the subject term.

            As for extrinsic evidence, Team’s expert testimony was deemed conclusory and unsupported by evidence.  Team’s expert relied on a dictionary definition of “pressure control” – any device or system able to maintain, raise, or lower pressure in a vessel or processing system.  However, such a definition sheds no light on “pressure controlling assembly” being used in common parlance to connote structure.  Even the purported admissions by Intex’s expert (i.e., that the term controls pressure and is an assembly, that devices exist that sense or control pressure, and that a cited prior art reference depicted “an apparatus that controls the pressure”) merely indicates that devices existed that can perform some of the functions of the “pressure controlling assembly.”  However, none of the experts’ testimony establish that “pressure controlling assembly” is “used in common parlance or by [skilled artisans] to designate a particular structure or class of structures.”

            As for prior art references that refer to a “pressure controlling assembly,” the court agreed with the PTAB’s assessment that such extrinsic evidence “demonstrates, at best, that the term is used as a descriptive term across a broad spectrum of industries, having a broad range of structures.  The record does not include sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the term ‘pressure controlling assembly’ is used in common parlance or used to designate a particular structure by [the skilled artisan].”

            As for the functions claimed for the “pressure controlling assembly,” there was no dispute:

  1. monitoring air pressure in the inflatable object after the inflatable body has been inflated by the pump;
  2. detecting that the air pressure inside the inflatable object decreases below a predetermined threshold after inflation by the pump;
  3. automatically activating the supplemental air pressure providing device when the pressure controlling assembly detects that the air pressure inside the inflatable object decreases below the predetermined threshold after inflation by the pump; and
  4. controlling the supplemental air pressure providing device to provide supplemental air pressure to the inflatable object so as to maintain the air pressure of the inflatable object within a predetermined range.

            The court agrees with the PTAB that the patent fails to disclose any corresponding structure for at least #3.  Team’s expert’s conclusory testimony that a skilled artisan would recognize that 121 and 122 in Fig. 2a interacts with element 13 in Fig. 1 to activate the supplemental air pressure providing device is not supported by any evidence.  Nothing in the patent describes 13 to be a switch, much less how it interacts with 121 and 122, whatever those are.

            As for the fact that CN ‘302 is part of the prosecution history, the court noted that the content of any document or reference submitted during prosecution by itself is not sufficient to remedy this missing disclosure of corresponding structure.  In reference to B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Braun’s reference to the “prosecution history” is in reference to affirmative statements made by the applicant during prosecution (such as in an Amendment or in a sworn declaration regarding the relationship between something in a drawing and a claimed MPF claim element) linking or associating corresponding structure with a claimed function.  “[W]e decline to hold that a Chinese-language priority document, whose potentially relevant disclosure was omitted from the United States patent application family, provides a clear link or association between the claimed ‘pressure controlling assembly’ and any structure recited or disclosed in the ‘979 patent.”

Takeaways

  • This case is a good refresher for MPF interpretation.
  • 37 CFR 1.57 addresses the situation where there is an inadvertent omission of a portion of the specification or drawings, by allowing a claim for foreign priority to be considered an incorporation by reference as to any inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings from that foreign priority application.  37 CFR 1.57(a) (pre-AIA) would apply to the parent application of the ‘979 patent.  37 CFR 1.57(b) (AIA) would apply to the application leading to the ‘979 patent.  However, any amendment made pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57 must be made before the close of prosecution.  It is unclear why the applicant did not use the provisions of 37 CFR 1.57 in this case.  Once the application is issued into a patent, as was the case here, the incorporation by reference provisions of 37 CFR 1.57 no longer apply.  As noted in MPEP 217(II)(E), “In order for the omitted material to be included in the application, and hence considered to be part of the disclosure, the application must be amended to include the omitted portion. Therefore, applicants can still intentionally omit material contained in the prior-filed application from the application containing the priority or benefit claim without the material coming back in by virtue of the incorporation by reference of 37 CFR 1.57(b). Applicants can maintain their intent by simply not amending the application to include the intentionally omitted material.”  Presumably, because the applicant for the ‘979 patent and its parent never took advantage of 37 CFR 1.57 during prosecution, the missing subject matter was treated as “intentionally omitted material” and does not come back into the patent by virtue of 37 CFR 1.57.
  • The specification of the ‘979 patent and of its parent did not include any incorporation by reference of its foreign priority application.  The applicant also did not take advantage of 37 CFR 1.57 during prosecution (see above).  Accordingly, the foreign priority application was deemed “omitted from the United States patent application family.”  And, just having it in the file wrapper at the USPTO is still not enough.  The applicant, during prosecution, must correct any missing link between any MPF claim elements and its corresponding structure in the specification.  Here, IF the Chinese priority application had been incorporated by reference or IF 37 CFR 1.57(a) (pre-AIA) and 37 CFR 1.57(b) (AIA) were used, an amendment to the specification to ADD inadvertently omitted English language translations of the corresponding structure from the priority application could have been submitted.  Such amendments to the specification would not be deemed “new matter” because of the incorporation by reference of the foreign priority application.
  • Always check the English language translation.  It seems odd that no one noticed the omission of any description of the elements 121, 122, and 13 from the Chinese priority application.  During the prosecution of the parent and the ‘979 patent, the Examiner identified at least a dozen different reference numbers that were not described in the specification.  When preparing an application, or translating one, the specification should be checked for a description for each and every reference number used in the drawings.   

There is a Standing to Defend Your Expired Patent Even If an Infringement Suit Has Been Settled

| July 8, 2019

Sony Corp. v. Iancu

Summary:

The CAFC vacated the PTAB’s decision, in which the PTAB found that the limitation “reproducing means” is not computer-implemented and does not require an algorithm because this limitation should have been construed as computer-implemented and that the corresponding structure is a synthesizer and controller that performs the algorithm described in the specification.  In addition, the CAFC found that there is a standing to appeal to defend an expired patent because the CAFC’s decision would have a consequence on any infringement that took place during the life of the patent.

Details:

Sony is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,097,676 (“the ’676 patent”) and appeals the PTAB’s decision in IPR, in which the PTAB found claims 5 and 8 of the ’676 patent unpatentable as obvious.

The ’676 patent:

            The ’676 patent is directed to an information recording medium that can store audio data having multiple channels and a reproducing device that can select which channel to play based on a default code or value stored in a memory.  This reproducing device has (1) storing means for storing the audio information, (2) reading means for reading codes associated with the audio information, and (3) reproducing means for reproducing the audio information based on the default code or value.

            Claim 5 of the ’676 patent recites:

5.         An information reproducing device for reproducing an information recording medium in which audio data of plural channels are multiplexedly recorded, the information reproducing device comprising:

storing means for storing a default value for designating one of the plural channels to be reproduced; and

reproducing means for reproducing the audio data of the channel designated by the default value stored in the storing means; and

wherein a plurality of voice data, each voice data having similar contents translated into different languages are multiplexedly recorded as audio data of plural channels; and a default value for designating the voice data corresponding to one of the different languages is stored in the storing means.

            Claim 8 recites the same features as claim 5 with some additional features.

The PTAB:

            The PTAB instituted IPR as to claims 5 and 8 of the ’676 patent.  The issue during IPR was whether the “reproducing means” was computer-implemented and required an algorithm.

            On September, 2017, the PTAB issued a final decision, where the claims were found to be unpatentable as obvious over the Yoshio reference.  The PTAB construed the “reproducing means” has a means-plus-function limitation, and found that its corresponding structure is a controller and a synthesizer, or the equivalents.  Furthermore, the PTAB found that this limitation is not computer-implemented and does not require an algorithm because a controller and a synthesizer are hardware elements.

The CAFC:

            The CAFC agreed with Sony’s argument that the “reproducing means” requires an algorithm to carry out the claimed function.

            The CAFC held that:

“In cases involving a computer-implemented invention in which the inventor has invoked means-plus-function claiming, this court has consistently required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For means-plus-function claims “in which the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm,” we have held that “the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

The specification of the ’676 patent discloses that “[i]n reproducing such a recording medium by using the reproducing device of the present invention, the processing as shown in FIG. 16 is executed.”  In fact, Fig. 16 discloses an algorithm in the form of a flowchart.

Therefore, the CAFC held that the “reproducing means” of claims 5 and 8 of the ’676 patent should be construed as computer-implemented and that the corresponding structure is a synthesizer and controller that performs the algorithm described in the specification.

Accordingly, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s decision and remand for further consideration of whether the Yoshio reference discloses a synthesizer and controller that performs the algorithm described in the specification, or equivalent, and whether the claims would have been obvious over the Yoshio reference.

Standing to Appeal:

The ’676 patent was expired in August 2017.  Petitioners have elected not to participate in the appeal before the CAFC.  The parties have settled the district court infringement suit involving this patent. 

Is there a standing to appeal?

Majority: YES because

  • The parties to this appeal remain adverse and none has suggested the lack of an Article III case or controversy.
  • The PTO argues that the PTAB’s decision should be affirmed.
  • Sony argues that the PTAB’s decision should be reversed and the claims should be patentable.
  • The CAFC’s decision would have a consequence on any infringement that took place during the life of the ’676 patent (past damages subject to the 6-year limitation and the owner of an expired patent can license the rights or transfer title to an expired patent).

Dissenting: NO because

  • No private and public interest (patent expired, petitioner declined to defend its victory, and infringement suit has been settled).
  •  No hint or possibility of present or future case or controversy by both parties and the PTO.

Takeaway:

  • Even if the patent has expired, the patentee has a standing to appeal before the CAFC to dispute the PTAB’s final decision.
  • An algorithm described in the specification for means-plus-function language helped the patentee with a narrow claim construction.

In a post-Williamson decision, “compliance mechanism” is a means-plus-function element that does not comply with the requirements under §112.

| January 20, 2016

Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp.

September 4, 2015

Before O’Malley, Plager, and Taranto. Opinion by O’Malley.

Summary

In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, the Federal Circuit relaxed the presumption against interpreting a claim element as a means-plus-function element in the absence of the word “means”. In this first decision applying the Williamson standard, the Federal Circuit interpreted the claim term “compliance mechanism” as a means-plus-function element within the scope of §112, 6th paragraph.


Read More/続きを読む

In 6-4 en banc decision, Federal Circuit maintains no-deference review of District Courts’ claim constructions

| March 11, 2014

Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics (en banc, Precedential)

Decided February 21, 2014

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, O’MALLEY.  Opinion by NEWMAN, Concurrence by LOURIE, Dissent by O’MALLEY.

Summary:

In a patent dispute involving the interpretation of a “means-plus-function” term, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit revised the District Court’s claim construction on appeal and held the patent claim invalid for indefiniteness, in the absence of any structure in the description corresponding to the “means” recited in the claim.

The Federal Circuit granted rehearing of the panel decision by the full Court (“en banc”), for the purpose of revisiting its practice of reviewing claim construction without giving any deference to the District Court.  In a 6-4 decision, the Federal Circuit en banc maintains the plenary review (“de novo”) rule established by its 1998 decision Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.


Read More/続きを読む

Divided Claim Construction Leads to Reversal of Jury Verdict Against Alleged Infringer

| April 17, 2013

Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

April 4, 2013

Panel: Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley.  Opinion by Lourie. Concurrence Opinions by Moore and O’Malley.

Summary

The Federal Circuit reversed a $482 million jury verdict against Cordis, a member of the Johnson & Johnson family. The reversal came as a result of the Federal Circuit’s significant narrowing of the district court’s construction of two key claim limitations. One claim term was narrowed because the Federal Circuit found that the patentee’s arguments made during prosecution of the asserted patent, for the purpose of distinguishing over cited prior art, amounted to prosecution disclaimer. Meanwhile, a structure identified in the specification by the patentee as the corresponding structure to a means-plus-function limitation was disregarded as such, because the specification failed to link the identified structure to the recited function with sufficient specificity.


Read More/続きを読む

Applicant’s failure to request claim construction under §112, 6th paragraph may invoke waiver of such claim construction

| January 23, 2013

In re Avid Identification Systems, Inc.

January 8, 2013

Panel:  Lourie, Clevenger and Bryson.  Opinion by Lourie.  Dissent by Clevenger.

Summary:

The Examiner rejected claims of a patent at issue, and the PTO board maintained the rejection finding that a means-plus function limitation was found in prior art where its broadest reasonable meaning was given.  CAFC affirmed the PTO decision, and denied the Applicants’ request for a claim construction under § 112, 6th paragraph, instead of the broadest reasonable interpretation.  CAFC reasoned that the Applicants waived that claim construction by failing to raise the issue during the procedure in the PTO.  The dissenting opinion pointed out that the claim construction according to § 112, 6th paragraph is mandatory as the statutory requirement where the claim term clearly invokes the application of § 112, 6th paragraph.

出願人はクレームが自明であるとして拒絶した特許庁審判部の判断を不服として、CAFCに控訴した。問題のクレームには、ミーンズプラスファンクション(”means for”の用語を用いた限定 )を記載がある。そのような記載があると通常、特許法112条第6パラグラフの適用があり、その機能限定は明細書に開示されている構造もしくはそれと均等な構造を記載していると限定解釈される。しかしながら、本件では、特許庁審査官および審判部は、そのミーンズプラスファンクションの限定を、一般的な構造限定のときのように合理的な範囲で最も広い意味(broadest reasonable meaning)の基準を用いて解釈した。この広い解釈に基づいてその機能限定は先行技術に記載されていると特許庁は判断した。この経緯に関してCAFCは、出願人は特許庁の手続きにおいて112条第6パラグラフの適用を自ら主張しなかったためその機会を放棄したと判断し、出願人の主張を退けた。CAFC裁判官の1人は、112条第6パラグラフの適用は制定法上の要求であり、出願人や審査官が同法に基づく限定解釈を要求しなくても先ずその解釈を採用すべきであるとの反対意見を述べた。


Read More/続きを読む

Method Claim Survives Over MPF Claim’s Demise Under Aristocrat

| November 28, 2012

ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.

November 21, 2012

Dyk, Prost, O’Malley.  Opinion by Prost.

Summary:

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of having different claim types.  ePlus’ jury verdict of infringement of two systems claims was vacated because the Federal Circuit found one means-plus-function element recited therein to lack the requisite corresponding structure being disclosed in the specification, thereby rendering the claims indefinite under 35 USC §112, second paragraph.  However, the infringement of a similar method claim reciting the same function as the means-plus-function element was affirmed.


Read More/続きを読む

CAFC discusses interplay between means-plus-function and claim differentiation

| November 19, 2012

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC.

October 14, 2012

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (“ICON”) owner of USP 6,019,710 (the “’710 patent”) sued Octane Fitness (“Octane”) for infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.   The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1–5, 7, and 9–10 of the ’710 patent by concluding that the “stroke rail” and “means for connecting” limitations were absent in Octane’s Q45 and Q47 machines.  On appeal, the CAFC agreed with the District Court’s claim construction and affirmed the District Court’s holding of non-infringement.


Read More/続きを読む

CAFC does not find means-plus-function in a “height adjustment mechanism”

| November 7, 2012

Flo Heathcare Solutions v. Kappos

October 23, 2012

Panel: Newman, Plager, and Wallach.  Opinion by Wallach.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

The patentee sued the defendant for infringement.  The defendant then requested inter partes reexamination of the patent.  The trial judge stayed the infringement action, pending completion of the reexamination.  The patent reexamination examiner and the Patent Office Board rejected the claims as being anticipated by the prior art.  On appeal, the CAFC disagreed with the PTO Board’s claim construction; but even under the CAFC’s claim construction, it found that the claims were anticipated and therefore affirmed the PTO’s rejection of the claims


Read More/続きを読む

Means-Plus-Function: The Achilles’ Heel

| May 9, 2012

Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.

April 9, 2012

Panel: Rader, O’Malley and Reyna. Opinion by Judge O’Malley

Summary

This decision illustrates that a patent could become invalidated even after surviving challenges of reexamination, which strengthen the presumption of validity, when a challenger discovers the Achilles’ Heel of a means-plus-function claim element resulting in a summary judgment of invalidity by the CAFC.   Noah appeals the granting, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (DC), of Intuit’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of USP 5,875,435 (the ‘435 patent) based on indefiniteness for a means-plus-function claim element without the DC hearing evidence of how one of skill in the art would view the specification.  The CAFC affirms by finding that the specification discloses no algorithm when the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of two identifiable functions performed by the means-plus-function limitation.


Read More/続きを読む

Next Page »

Subscribe | 登録

Archives

Tags

词典 / 辞書 / 사전
  • dictionary
  • dictionary
  • 英語から日本語

Double click on any word on the page or type a word:

Powered by dictionarist.com