{"id":1589,"date":"2017-06-07T22:01:41","date_gmt":"2017-06-08T02:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1589"},"modified":"2017-06-09T14:36:33","modified_gmt":"2017-06-09T18:36:33","slug":"means-does-not-always-mean-means-plus-function","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1589","title":{"rendered":"“Means” Does Not Always Mean “Means Plus Function”"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L.<\/a>, [2016-2018] (June 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision in IPR2014-01236 that all of the challenged claims in \u00a0U.S.\u00a0Patent 7,548,875 were invalid for obviousness.<\/p>\n

The ‘875 patent relates to a method of delivering audio and\/or visual files to a wireless device. \u00a0The prosecution lasted almost seven years, and the claims were only allowed after they were amended\u00a0to recite a \u201cwireless device means.\u201d \u00a0The Board determined that “wireless device means” was not a means plus function element, but even if it was it did not require a device with multiple processors.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that in determining whether a claim term invokes \u00a7 112\u00a0\u00b6 6, the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or\u00a0absence of the word “means” but whether the words of the\u00a0claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the\u00a0art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for\u00a0structure. \u00a0It is sufficient if the claim term is\u00a0used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the\u00a0pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term\u00a0covers a broad class of structures and even if the term\u00a0identifies the structures by their function.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit agreed that\u00a0We agree with MindGeek that \u201cwireless device means\u201d\u00a0does not invoke \u00a7 112 \u00b6 6 because it recites sufficient\u00a0structure. \u00a0Although\u00a0the term uses the word \u201cmeans\u201d and so triggers a presumption,\u00a0the full term recites structure, not functionality. The claims do not recite a function or functions for the\u00a0wireless device means to perform, and \u201cwireless device\u201d is\u00a0\u201cused in common parlance . . . to designate structure. The Federal Circuit further found that\u00a0\u201cwireless device means\u201d did not require multiple processors, noting that at least one disclosed embodiment was exclusively software, and thus it would be improper to construe\u00a0 \u201cwireless device means\u201d to require multiple processors.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s claim construction, and its resulting finding of obviousness.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L., [2016-2018] (June 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision in IPR2014-01236 that all of the challenged claims in \u00a0U.S.\u00a0Patent 7,548,875 were invalid for obviousness. The ‘875 patent relates to a method of … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57,7,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-112f","category-claim-constructino","category-inter-partes-review"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1589"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1591,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1589\/revisions\/1591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}