What is the difference between ‘capable of’ and ‘configured to’ in patent claims?

In patent claims, particularly for apparatus claims, the phrases “capable of” and “configured to” can have different implications:

• “Capable of” generally refers to an inherent ability or potential of the structure to perform a function, even if it’s not specifically designed for that purpose.
• “Configured to” implies that the structure is specifically designed or arranged to perform the stated function.

According to MPEP 2114, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” This means that the capability of a prior art device to perform the claimed function is often sufficient to anticipate the claim, regardless of whether it’s explicitly stated to be “configured to” perform that function.

However, “configured to” language may be given more weight if it implies structural modifications that are not present in a prior art reference that is merely “capable of” performing the function.

To learn more:

• capable of
• configured to
• functional language
• apparatus claims