{"id":2504,"date":"2019-08-12T11:51:45","date_gmt":"2019-08-12T15:51:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2504"},"modified":"2019-08-18T22:20:34","modified_gmt":"2019-08-19T02:20:34","slug":"board-erred-in-failing-to-apply-%c2%a7-112-%c2%b6-6-to-mechanical-control-assembly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2504","title":{"rendered":"Board Erred in Failing to Apply \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 to \u201cMechanical Control Assembly\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu<\/a>, [2017-2292] (August 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in finding that the term \u201cmechanical control assembly\u201d was not a means-plus-function term governed by \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Patent No. 8,011,458 discloses a steering and driving system for zero turn radius (\u201cZTR\u201d) vehicles. Both of the independent claims contain the phrase \u201cmechanical control assembly.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cessential inquiry of whether a claim element invokes \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6. is not merely the presence or absence of the word \u2018means\u2019 but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. One way to demonstrate that a claim limitation fails to recite sufficiently definite structure is to show that, although not employing the word \u201cmeans,\u201d the claim limitation uses a similar nonce word that can operate as a substitute for “means” in the context of \u00a7 112, para. 6.\u201d Generic terms like \u201cmodule,\u201d \u201cmechanism,\u201d \u201celement,\u201d and \u201cdevice\u201d are commonly used as verbal con-structs that operate, like \u201cmeans,\u201d to claim a particular function rather than describe a sufficiently definite structure. Even if the claims recite a nonce term followed by functional language, other language in the claim might inform the structural character of the limitation-in-question or otherwise impart structure to the claim term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In assessing whether the claim limitation is in means-plus-function format, we do not merely consider an introductory phrase (e.g., \u201cmechanical control assembly\u201d) in isolation, but look to the entire passage including functions performed by the introductory phrase. The ultimate question is whether the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the term \u201cmechanical control assembly\u201d is similar to other generic, black-box words that it has held to be nonce terms similar to \u201cmeans\u201d and subject to \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 because the term does not connote sufficiently definite structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit further agreed that the rest of the claim language of the disputed phrase is primarily, but not entirely, functional. However the Federal Circuit said that the Board erred when it relied on the specification\u2019s description of a \u201cZTR control assembly\u201d to conclude that the claim term \u201cmechanical control assembly\u201d had an established structural meaning. The fact that the specification discloses a structure corresponding to an asserted means-plus-function claim term does not necessarily mean that the claim term is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to connote a specific structure or a class of structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit found that the Board\u2019s analysis implied that so long as a claim term has corresponding structure in the specification, it is not a means-plus-function limitation. This view would leave \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 without any application, because any means-plus-function limitation that met the statutory requirements, i.e., which includes having corresponding structure in the specification, would end up not being a means-plus-function limitation at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit also disagreed with the Board\u2019s interpretation of the prosecution history, finding that arguing that a limitation connotes structure and has weight is not inconsistent with claiming in means-plus-function format since means-plus-function limitations connote structure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the lack of any clear and undisputed statement foreclosing application of \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6, we conclude that the Board erred in giving dispositive weight to the equivocal statements it cited in the prosecution history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, [2017-2292] (August 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in finding that the term \u201cmechanical control assembly\u201d was not a means-plus-function term governed by \u00a7 112, … 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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-112f"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2504","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=2504"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2504\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2505,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2504\/revisions\/2505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}