{"id":1822,"date":"2017-10-30T23:49:12","date_gmt":"2017-10-31T03:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1822"},"modified":"2017-11-25T00:22:11","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T05:22:11","slug":"functional-language-in-an-apparatus-claim-does-not-always-make-claim-indefinite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1822","title":{"rendered":"Functional Language in an Apparatus Claim does not Always Make Claim Indefinite"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Mastermine Software, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp.<\/a>, [2016-2465](October 30, 2017), the Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed the court\u2019s claim construction,\u00a0but reversed the court\u2019s indefiniteness determination, and\u00a0remand for proceedings consistent with its opinion.<\/p>\n

U.S. Patent\u00a0Nos. 7,945,850 and 8,429,518\u00a0describe a process by which an electronic\u00a0worksheet is automatically created.\u00a0 The district court construed the term “pivot table,” resulting in a stipulation of non-infringement.\u00a0 The district court also agreed with Microsoft that certain of the claims were\u00a0indefinite for improperly claiming two different\u00a0subject-matter classes.<\/p>\n

On appeal Mastermine argued the district court’s construction of pivot table was incorrect because it excludes\u00a0tables that do not display data.\u00a0 However the Federal Circuit found that each time the claims recite the generation\u00a0of a pivot table, they further recite within the same limitation
\nthat the generated pivot table contains data or\u00a0presents data.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit further found that the specification\u00a0further supports\u00a0the district court\u2019s construction, noting that\u00a0in\u00a0the context of the invention is to display data that can be\u00a0viewed, summarized, and manipulated by users, and such\u00a0user action is available upon the generation of the pivot\u00a0 tables.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit further found that prosecution history of the patents\u00a0 provides\u00a0additional support for the district court\u2019s construction.\u00a0 \u00a0Finally, the Federal Circuit found that\u00a0MasterMine\u2019s arguments in support of its contrary\u00a0claim construction were not compelling.<\/p>\n

With respect to the finding that claims 8 and 10 of the \u2019850 patent and
\nclaims 1, 2, and 3 of the \u2019518 patent were invalid for indefiniteness, the Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0while a claim directed to\u00a0both a method and an apparatus may be indefinite, apparatus\u00a0claims are not necessarily indefinite for using\u00a0functional language.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court, finding\u00a0the claims were simply apparatus claims with
\nproper functional language, like HTC and MEC and UltimatePointer.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that like the claims in MEC, HTC, and\u00a0UltimatePointer, the claims at issue merely claim\u00a0that the system possesses the recited structure which\u00a0is capable of performing the recited functions.\u00a0 Further, the Federal Circuit\u00a0distinguished\u00a0IPXL Holdings and Katz, as the claims at issue do\u00a0not claim activities performed by the user; they do not
\nexplicitly claim the user\u2019s act of selection, but rather,\u00a0claim the system\u2019s capability to receive and respond to\u00a0user selection.<\/p>\n

Because these claims inform those skilled in\u00a0the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable\u00a0certainty, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s determination\u00a0that claims 8 and 10 of the \u2019850 patent and claims 1, 2,\u00a0and 3 of the \u2019518 patent are invalid as indefinite<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

In Mastermine Software, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., [2016-2465](October 30, 2017), the Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed the court\u2019s claim construction,\u00a0but reversed the court\u2019s indefiniteness determination, and\u00a0remand for proceedings consistent with its opinion. U.S. Patent\u00a0Nos. 7,945,850 and 8,429,518\u00a0describe a process by which an electronic\u00a0worksheet … 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":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-indefiniteness"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1822","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=1822"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1823,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1822\/revisions\/1823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}