How does the “broadest reasonable interpretation” apply to means-plus-function claim limitations?

The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of means-plus-function claim limitations is subject to specific rules under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to MPEP 2111: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,…

Read More

How can an applicant avoid or invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation?

Applicants have several options to either avoid or intentionally invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation for their claim limitations. According to the MPEP § 2181, applicants can take the following actions: To avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation: Amend the claim to remove the term “means” or “step” and recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.…

Read More

How does 35 U.S.C. 112(f) relate to the doctrine of equivalents?

35 U.S.C. 112(f) (formerly 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) has a specific relationship to the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 explains: “35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, permit means- (or step-) plus-function limitations in claims to combinations, ‘with the proviso that application of the broad literal language of such claims must…

Read More