1
©2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Functional Language in Claims
David O’Dell Haynes and Boone LLP
2
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Agenda
• Claim Preambles• Means plus function• Product by process• Software/circuit
functionality
3
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Preamble
• Does it limit the claim?– Case by case determination (MPEP 2111.02)
• When is it a limitation?– When it is “necessary to give life, meaning,
and vitality” to a claim
4
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Is the Preamble a Limitation?
• Limits the structure of the claim – yes– Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of
the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation.– Elements in the preamble appear in the body of the claim.
• Purpose or intended use – no– If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of
the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction
5
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Preamble
• Examples:– “A surgical drill comprising:”
• Does the claim recite any structure or operation directed to surgery?
• Or, does the claim only recite a motor and chuck?
– “For use in cellular communications, a device for connecting two components, comprising:”• Does claim body recite cellular-based
structure?• Or, is this a mechanical connector?
6
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Preamble
• However– Functional language in a claim
preamble can help to get your application into a proper art unit• But, KSR allows examiners to consider art
in different fields of endeavor
– Also, a new use for an old device may be patentable• Must rebut prima facie obviousness
7
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Preambles
• Takeaways – Consider a short preamble
• Examiners ignore them for patentability• Infringers argue them for non-infringement
– If you cite elements in the preamble, reference them in the body of the claim
– Some elements in the preamble may be helpful for classification or other reasons
8
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Means Plus Function (MPF)
35 USC 112, para 6• An element in a claim for a combination
may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Means Plus Function (MPF)
– What is an “equivalent”?• performs the identical function “in substantially
the same way, with substantially the same result.” General Protecht Group, Inc. v. ITC (2010)
– Carrying out a function magnetically is NOT equivalent to carrying it out mechanically as a matter of law
• If an alternative exists at the time the patent was filed, but it was not disclosed in the spec, then the alternative may not be an “equivalent.”
10
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Means Plus Function (MPF)
• Takeaways – Consider using non-MPF claims– MPF claims can be helpful if your
specification has many embodiments.• Give many examples of different
structures in the specification
11
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
– What is a “product-by-process” claim?• Product is defined at least in part in terms
of the method or process by which the product is made
– Example 1: a device made by the process of claim x.
– Example 2: a trench formed by a high-pressure water excavation process
12
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
– What is not a “product-by-process” claim?• Intended use of a device
– Discussed previously with preambles
• A process that is actually a structural limitation.
– Example 3: an extruded layer.
• A function of a claim element.– Example 4: a computer for calculating x.– (This will be discussed in the following section.)
13
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
– Do the process elements in product-by-process claims serve as limitations?•The answer depends on the
situation
14
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
– Consider the following four cases:• In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed Cir 1985)• Atlantic Thermoplastics v. Faytex Corp.,
970 F.2d 834 (Fed Cir 1992)• Abbot Labs v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282
(Fed Cir. 2009, en banc)• Amgen v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, 580
F.3e 1340 (Fed Cir 2009)
15
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
In re Thorpe (Fed Cir. 1985)– Pertains to patent prosecution– “The patentability of a product does not
depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
– Cited in current version of MPEP 2113
16
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
Atlantic Thermoplastics (Fed Cir. 1992)– Pertains to infringement– “process terms in product-by-process claims
serve as limitations, in determining infringement.”
– Contradicted earlier case, Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(“the correct reading of product-by-process claims is that they are not limited to product prepared by the process set forth in the claims.”)
17
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
Abbot Labs v. Sandoz (Fed Cir. 2009)– Pertains to infringement– En banc, attempts to resolve differences
between Atlantic and Scripps.– “process terms in product-by-process claims
serve as limitations in determining infringement.” citing Atlantic.
• Note that Judge Rader wrote both Atlantic and Abbot.
18
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
Amgen v. F. Hoffman (Fed Cir. 2009)– Pertains to validity before the court– when “determining validity of a product-by-
process claim, the focus is on the product and not on the process of making it.”
19
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
Amgen v. F. Hoffman (Fed Cir. 2009)– (continued)– The Court discusses Atlantic, but appears to be
following Thorpe.– This violates the axiom: “claims must be
interpreted and given the same meaning for purposes of both validity and infringement analysis.” Amazon.com v. Barnes andNoble.com, 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
– Note, this axiom does not apply to treating claims differently before the PTO and the court. See, e.g., In re Swanson
20
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
– Patentability Before the PTO – No (rebuttable)• “Even though product-by-process claims are
limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113
• Burden to overcome rejection shifts to patentee.
Are Product-by-Process Terms Limitations?
21
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
– Infringement Before the Court - Yes• “[P]rocess terms in product-by-process
claims serve as limitations in determining infringement.” Abbot Labs, citing Atlantic.
Are Product-by-Process Terms Limitations?
22
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
– Validity Before the Court - Maybe• According to Amgen, they are not.• However, it still seems that one can
argue that claims should be interpreted consistently for validity and infringement
Are Product-by-Process Terms Limitations?
23
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
– Summary:•Patentability before the PTO: No
(rebuttable)•Infringement before a court: Yes•Validity before a court: Maybe
24
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Product-by-Process
– Takeaways • Product-by-process claims seem to get
the worst of all worlds– It is harder to obtain a patent. – It is harder to show infringement.– They may or may not help the patentee
uphold the validity of the claim in court
• Therefore, avoid drafting product-by-process claims if possible
25
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Additional Case of Interest
Ex parte Rodriguez, (BPAI 2009) Claim 1:
An apparatus comprising:a system configuration generator configured
to generate a random system configuration file of a structurally variable and complex system;a system builder configured to (i) build a
system level netlist and (ii) generate system parameters in response to said random system configuration file; and …
26
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Claim 1 (continued) a system verification environment
configured to verify said structurally variable and complex system in response to said system level netlist, wherein said simulation verification environment is configured to provide automatic random verification of said structurally variable and complex system in response to said random system configuration file.
Ex parte Rodriguez
27
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Board ruled: All claim elements were means
plus function. (e.g., “a system configuration
generator configured to generate a random system configuration file of a structurally variable and complex system”)
Ex parte Rodriguez
28
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Ex parte RodriguezThe means plus function claim elements were rejected because there was no structure (algorithm) in the specification (indefinite and non-enabling)
•Spec had a high-level flow chart, but did not list any source code•Spec stated a POSA would know
“appropriate programming” to implement the invention.
29
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Ex parte Rodriguez
BPAI stated: “In particular, the specification does not disclose any specific algorithm that could be implemented on a general purpose computer to provide [the claimed function].”
30
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Ex parte RodriguezBPAI further stated:
•“[F]unctional limitations must be commensurate with the scope of the supporting disclosure.”•“As such, the specification may not
enable the full scope of the functional language of the claim without undue experimentation.”
31
© 2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Ex parte RodriguezTakeaways: – In software/circuit patents, be careful to support the claim functions in spec
• software algorithms• flow charts or source code• circuit diagrams
– Be careful for unintended MPF claims. – Understand that functional language can be very broad.
Top Related