The podcast explores the importance of word choice in patenting, focusing on means-plus-function claim language. The panel of patent experts discusses the concept of means-plus-function claiming, provides drafting tips, and examines the use of 'configured to' in software claims. They also discuss definiteness of terms in patent applications, prosecution differences, and the value of dependent claims.
50:38
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The choice of words in patent applications is crucial to avoid rejection and assert rights.
Means plus function claiming in patent applications requires clear descriptions of functions and supporting structures.
Deep dives
The Importance of Enablement in Patent System
Enablement is crucial in the patent system as it allows the long-term progress of science and the useful arts. It requires inventors to disclose their inventions to the public in exchange for exclusive rights. However, tension arises when inventors desire broad and future-proof coverage for their ideas while also enabling innovation and competition. Means plus function claiming, a type of patent law, further complicates this tension. It refers to the use of functional language in patent claims, necessitating clear word choices and sufficient disclosure to support the claimed functions. The choice of words is crucial in patent applications to avoid rejection and ensure the ability to assert rights.
Understanding Means Plus Function Claiming
Means plus function claiming is a semantic aspect of patent applications that pertains to the use of functional language in claims. This type of language describes what something does rather than what it is, posing challenges in terms of validating the corresponding structure necessary to perform those functions. Courts and examiners evaluate whether means plus function language is supported by sufficient disclosure of algorithms or structures in the patent specification. Examples of means plus function terms include module, mechanism, apparatus, and system. It is vital to clearly describe the multiple functions and the supporting structures or algorithms in the specification to ensure the patent's validity.
Navigating Means Plus Function Claiming in Software Patents
Means plus function claiming has specific implications for software patents. The use of functional language in software claims requires a clear and comprehensive description of the algorithms or structures supporting the claimed functions. Court cases have highlighted the importance of providing explicit support and avoid using thin disclosures for well-known terms. Expert testimony and dictionaries can aid in demonstrating the structure associated with non-structural terms commonly used in software claims. Dependent claims can further clarify and support the definiteness and breadth of functional language by providing specific structural language for each function.
Tips for Effective Means Plus Function Claiming
When using means plus function language, it is essential to be mindful of the support and clarity needed for the claimed functions. Structures known in the art should be described in the specification to provide sufficient support for the functions described in the claims. Sprinkling means plus function language throughout the claims can provide breadth, but it should not be the sole claim type. Additionally, in software patents, algorithms for each function should be included to substantiate the functional language. Using dependent claims can further clarify and provide explicit structural language to ensure definiteness and support in the patent application.
Word choice matters a great deal in the world of patenting. You’re using the English language to draw a picture around highly technical concepts. The precision with which this is done, down to the semantic level, can make all of the difference when it comes to your patent application being rejected or granted – and the future likelihood of your ability to assert your rights or defend against invalidation. Word choice too narrow or overly specific – and you can easily be designed around by competitors. Word choice too broad and only describing what something is vs. what it does and you risk rejection or invalidation for what will be ruled as linguistic tricks to get more coverage than what you actually invented. The tension is real and the case law interpretation is fluid, but it all still comes down to determining if the chosen words will enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out an invention – in the interest of other inventors being able to build on the idea, while also avoiding trespassing with infringement.
One very particular place this tension between breadth of coverage and specificity in enablement arises is with the concept of means-plus-function claim language. In this month’s episode, Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy here at Aurora, leads a discussion, along with our all star patent panel, into the nuanced world of means-plus-function claiming. The group digs into the statute, explores relevant case law in an analysis of the kinds of word choices that have and haven’t caused problems for inventors, and also provides some great drafting tips for de-risking the use of means-plus-function claim language.
Ashley is joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist at Aurora ⦿ Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting ⦿ David Cohen, Principal at Cohen Sciences ⦿ Shelley Couturier, Patent Strategist and Search Specialist
Before jumping into the deep with the panel, we also provide a quick primer on key concepts including specification vs claims, Section 112 enablement, functional claim language, and nonce words.