by Steve Driskill | Jan 31, 2014 | [sub] invocation, [sub] priority, Formal Requirements, Means Plus Function
A “receiver” is reasonably well understood in the art as a name for a structure which performs the recited function. “The term ‘receiver’ (i.e., [in] the absence of the term means) presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art” to...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 2, 2013 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
The sufficient structure inquiry focuses on whether the claim recites sufficient structure to perform “the functions in question.” The more generic the function, the more generic the specific structure sufficient to perform it can be. In addition, it should be noted...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2013 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
Use of the word “circuit” generally connotes structure and avoids a usually undesirable means-plus-function construction, especially when accompanied by adjectival qualification or functional language describing its operation (e.g., a “soft start” circuit that...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2013 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
A rare example of a scenario in which a means-plus-function interpretation could have actually helped the applicant – and yet they still lost. While the court acknowledged that “the Board has on occasion overlooked particular procedural defaults,” it concluded...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 23, 2012 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
Using a functional modifier attached to elements such as a “mechanism” or an equivalent term commonly used to designate structure can be sufficient to avoid a means-plus-function construction. Further, the Federal Circuit specifically noted the distinction between a...
