Can a method claim be means-plus-function?
Id. Third, the court rejected the implication that a means-plus-function term cannot be nested in a method claim. In relevant part, the brief stated the claims at issue were directed to a method rather than an apparatus, and therefore the limitation “user identification module . . .” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6.
What is a means-plus-function claim?
Means-plus-function claiming allows a patentee to claim functionality without reciting a specific structure within the claim itself. Instead, a means-plus-function claim relies on a corresponding structure found in the corresponding patent specification.
What is broadest reasonable interpretation?
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
What is Markush claim?
A Markush claim refers to a chemical structure by means of symbols indicating substituent groups. In such a claim, one or more parts of the claimed compound comprise multiple functionally equivalent chemical entities.
When to use means plus function in claim?
Essentially, means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within the body of the claim itself. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does rather than by what it is.
What is a primer on indefiniteness and Means plus function?
A Primer on Indefiniteness and Means Plus Function. Essentially, means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within the body of the claim itself.
When to invoke the means plus function treatment?
For example, although a nonstructural term like “mechanism” standing alone may invoke means plus function treatment, when it is coupled with a function it will not invoke such treatment when it is preceded by a structural modifier (e.g., “detent mechanism”).
Are there structural equivalents of a means-function claim?
The CAFC has also held several times that structural “equivalents” of a means-function claim element means equivalents of the “corresponding structure”..”described in the specification”. E.g., since at least Johnson v.