How are means-plus-function limitations interpreted in interference proceedings?
In interference proceedings, means-plus-function limitations require special consideration. According to MPEP 2301.03:
“Claims reciting means-plus-function limitations, in particular, might have different scopes depending on the corresponding structure described in the written description.”
This means that even if two claims have identical language, they may not necessarily be drawn to the same invention if they use means-plus-function limitations. The scope of these claims depends on the specific structures described in each application’s written description.
For example, if two applications claim a “means for fastening” but one describes glue and the other describes a rivet, these claims might not interfere unless it can be shown that glue and rivets were considered structurally equivalent or would have rendered each other obvious in the relevant art.
To learn more: