Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
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 be limited to only those means that are ‘equivalent’ to the actual means shown in the patent specification. This is an application of the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive role, narrowing the application of broad literal claim elements.’”
In essence, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive manner to means-plus-function claim limitations, limiting their scope to equivalents of the structures disclosed in the specification.
To learn more:
MPEP 2186 – Relationship To The Doctrine Of Equivalents (2)
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
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 be limited to only those means that are ‘equivalent’ to the actual means shown in the patent specification. This is an application of the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive role, narrowing the application of broad literal claim elements.’”
In essence, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive manner to means-plus-function claim limitations, limiting their scope to equivalents of the structures disclosed in the specification.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
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 be limited to only those means that are ‘equivalent’ to the actual means shown in the patent specification. This is an application of the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive role, narrowing the application of broad literal claim elements.’”
In essence, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive manner to means-plus-function claim limitations, limiting their scope to equivalents of the structures disclosed in the specification.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
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 be limited to only those means that are ‘equivalent’ to the actual means shown in the patent specification. This is an application of the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive role, narrowing the application of broad literal claim elements.’”
In essence, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive manner to means-plus-function claim limitations, limiting their scope to equivalents of the structures disclosed in the specification.
To learn more: