ARTICLE
10 September 2021

In A Means-Plus-Function Claim, The Use Of "Circuitry" As A Corresponding Structure Is Sufficient

WT
Winston Taylor

Contributor

Whether you're leading the way, disrupting an industry, entering a new phase of growth, or launching a defining product—we're in the room with you. In the action. Sleeves rolled up.

With a rich history spanning both sides of the Atlantic, we are present in the major commercial centers that matter to our clients: the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Combining scale with the speed clients demand, our defining capabilities include major litigation, critical transactions, strategic IP, and private wealth.

Our team of over 1,400 lawyers works hand-in-hand across markets, sectors, practice areas, and client teams. All-in problem solvers, we bring the creativity to think differently, and the pragmatism to get things done when it counts the most.

Embedded in your business and sharing your ambition, we take the work personally. Shaping what we do and how we do it around your goals and needs, always one step ahead of the moment.

The patent at issue on appeal claimed techniques for generating a power tracking supply voltage for a circuit that processes multiple radio frequency signals simultaneously.
United States Intellectual Property

The patent at issue on appeal claimed techniques for generating a power tracking supply voltage for a circuit that processes multiple radio frequency signals simultaneously. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated the patent as obvious, but the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The court found that the PTAB had not given adequate notice that it would depart from the parties' agreed construction of a key term, and so violated the patentee's procedural rights. The court vacated and remanded on those grounds.

However, the court affirmed the PTAB's construction of a means-plus-function term relating to a "power tracker." The court held that the corresponding structure for the power tracker is a circuit, rather than a general-purpose computer. Under well-established law, "[i]n a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm." However, this "algorithm requirement" does not apply where the claimed function can be achieved by any general-purpose computer without special programming.

The algorithm requirement also does not apply to functions implemented through circuitry, as in this case. Unlike a computer or microprocessor programmed to carry out an algorithm, "circuitry" does not require special programming to perform particular functions. In other words, the disclosure of circuitry provides the needed "structure that necessarily limits the scope of a claim without the aid of special programming." The Federal Circuit further explained that applying the algorithm requirement to circuitry would jeopardize a plethora of patents in the electrical arts that rely on circuitry as the corresponding structure for their means-plus-function claim limitations.

Read the full decision here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More