How does the USPTO examine means-plus-function claims?
The USPTO examines means-plus-function claims using a two-step analysis, as explained in MPEP 2182: Define the function: The examiner must first identify the specific function claimed in the limitation. As stated in the MPEP, “The court must construe the function of a means-plus-function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only…
Read MoreWhat is the “quid pro quo” for using means-plus-function claim language?
The “quid pro quo” for using means-plus-function claim language refers to the trade-off between the convenience of using such language and the duty to link or associate structure to function. This concept is explained in MPEP 2182, which cites the Federal Circuit case B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs: “We hold that, pursuant to…
Read MoreHow should examiners interpret means-plus-function limitations?
According to MPEP 2182, examiners should interpret means-plus-function limitations in a manner consistent with the specification disclosure. The MPEP provides guidance on this interpretation: Consult the specification: “If the specification defines what is meant by the limitation for the purposes of the claimed invention, the examiner should interpret the limitation as having that meaning.” Exercise…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s burden of proof for means-plus-function limitations?
According to MPEP 2182, when applying prior art to a means-plus-function limitation, the examiner has specific burdens of proof: The examiner must show that the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim. If the prior art only teaches identity of function, the examiner carries the initial burden of proof for showing…
Read MoreHow is inherency established for functional limitations in patent claims?
Establishing inherency for functional limitations in patent claims involves a specific approach, as outlined in MPEP 2182: “If the prior art reference teaches the identical structure or acts but is silent about performing the claimed function, a reasonable presumption is that the prior art structure inherently performs the same function.” To establish inherency, the examiner…
Read More