How are “equivalents” interpreted in means-plus-function claims?
The interpretation of “equivalents” in means-plus-function claims can vary depending on how the element is described in the supporting specification. According to MPEP 2184: “Generally, an ‘equivalent’ is interpreted as embracing more than the specific elements described in the specification for performing the specified function, but less than any element that performs the function specified…
Read MoreWhat factors are considered when deciding equivalence in means-plus-function claims?
When determining equivalence in means-plus-function claims, examiners consider several factors. According to MPEP 2184, the primary considerations are: Identical function: “Unless an element performs the identical function specified in the claim, it cannot be an equivalent for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.” Indicia of equivalence: While there’s…
Read MoreWhat is the burden of proof for nonequivalence in means-plus-function claims?
When a prima facie case of equivalence has been made by the examiner, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove nonequivalence. According to MPEP 2184, “Where, however, the specification is silent as to what constitutes equivalents and the examiner has made out a prima facie case of equivalence, the burden is placed upon the…
Read MoreCan an applicant amend claims to overcome a finding of equivalence?
Yes, applicants have the opportunity to amend claims to overcome a finding of equivalence in means-plus-function claims. MPEP 2184 provides two main approaches: Limiting the function: “An applicant may choose to amend the claim by further limiting the function so that there is no longer identity of function with that taught by the prior art…
Read MoreAre mere allegations of nonequivalence sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of equivalence?
No, mere allegations of nonequivalence are not sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of equivalence in means-plus-function claims. MPEP 2184 states: “Under no circumstance should an examiner accept as persuasive a bare statement or opinion that the element shown in the prior art is not an equivalent embraced by the claim limitation.” To successfully…
Read More