How does the use of “means” or “step” in a claim affect its interpretation?

The use of “means” or “step” in a claim can significantly affect its interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to the MPEP § 2187, the presence or absence of these terms creates rebuttable presumptions regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):

1. Use of “means” or “step”: Creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
2. Absence of “means” or “step”: Creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f).

The MPEP states:

“Use of the word ‘means’ (or ‘step’) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.”

However, these presumptions can be rebutted based on the claim language and structure. For example, if a claim uses “means” but recites sufficient structure to perform the function, it may not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Conversely, a claim without “means” that uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language may still invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) if it lacks sufficient structure.

To learn more:

• means
• step
• 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
• claim interpretation
• rebuttable presumption