Finisar v. DirecTV: Software Means-Plus-Function Claim must be Supported by Particular Structure

Finisar v. DirecTV (Fed. Cir. 2008) [This is Part II of the case discussion. Read Part I]

In a cross-appeal, Finisar asked the CAFC to overturn the lower court’s findings that its means-plus-function claims were invalid for failing to disclose any particular structure to perform the claimed function.  A patent applicant is allowed to claim that her invention covers the “means” for accomplish certain results so long as the application also discloses the “structure” for accomplishing the result.  That structural disclosure must be found somewhere in the specification. Means plus function claims are generally easier to write and are thought by many to be quite broad. Over the past decade, however, courts have increasingly been wary of particularly overbroad claims.

In this case, the claimed means and functions were software related. A number of CAFC cases have required that software means-plus-function claims provide more structural disclosure than just a general purpose computer. Rather, the disclosure must be “the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” WMS Gaming; See also Aristocrat. The CAFC sees its structure requirement as quite minimal and easy to satisfy. Here, however, the complete lack of structure leaves the claims so vague that “one of skill simply cannot perceive the bounds of the invention.”

Notes:

• One of the Finisar MPF clauses reads as follows:
• “database editing means, coupled to said one or more computer memory devices, for generating a hierarchically arranged set of indices for referencing data in said information database, including distinct indices for referencing distinct portions thereof, and for embedding said indices in said information database . . .”

Computer Implemented Means-Plus-Function Element Must be Supported by Specific Algorithm in Specification

Aristocrat Technologies Australia (ATA) v. International Gaming Technology (IGT) (2007-1419) (Fed. Cir. 2008)

ATA and IGT have two parallel cases pending before the CAFC. This appeal focuses on whether ATA’s asserted claims are invalid as indefinite. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,093,102). The other pending case questions whether the PTO properly revived ATA’s unintentionally abandoned national stage application. (U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,056,215 and 7,108,603) [See Patently-O discussion of revival case].

This case focuses on a patent covering an electronic slot machine patent that allows players to pre-select which combination of symbol locations will be used to determine a winner.

Claims Indefinite: The district court held the claims invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Its opinion focused on the claimed means-plus-function element “game control means” — finding the term indefinite because the specification did not provide “structure” to perform the claimed functions.  The specification did include the statement that the control means could be a microprocessor-based gaming machine with “appropriate programming.” However, the lower court focused on the absence of any “specific algorithm” or “step-by-step process for performing the claimed functions.”

On appeal, the CAFC affirmed, holding that computer implemented means-plus-function claims must include “more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.”  The purpose of the requirement, according to Judge Bryson’s opinion, is to avoid overbroad “pure functional” claims.  Because of the ubiquity of general purpose computers, a bare microprocessor cannot be considered a sufficiently specific structural disclosure:

For a patentee to claim a means for performing a particular function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming.

Within PHOSITA’s Ability: The algorithm missing from ATA’s disclosure is almost certainly within the ability of an ordinary game programmer.  In fact, I believe that it would only take me (a law professor) only a few hours to create a rough algorithm showing how the ATA software program could operate.  Judge Bryson shot-down that argument: Structure for a means-plus-function element must be provided in the specification regardless of whether the structure is already well known in the art.

What is Required: “Source code” is not required to be disclosed, nor is a “highly detailed description of the algorithm.”  However, a computer oriented application using means-plus-function claims must “at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a "special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm." (Quoting WMS Gaming)

Notes:

• Biomedino v. Waters Technology (Fed. Cir. 2007)

CAFC: "Circuit means" interpreted as means-plus-function

DESA IP v. EML Tech and Costco (Fed. Cir. 2007 – NONPRECEDENTIAL).

DESA owns a patent directed to motion-activated security lights. The lights have a low-level always-on illumination as well as a bright security illumination that is activated when motion is detected by a passive infrared motion sensor. During infringement litigation, the district court construed the claims and consequently entered a stipulated judgment of noninfringement.

The appeal focused on whether the disputed claim phrases — "sensor means," "control circuit means," and "switching means" — should be interpreted as means-plus-function.

The use of the word "means" in the claim language invokes a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies; conversely, the failure to use "means" invokes a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. . . . Nonetheless, the presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies may be rebutted if the claim recites no function or recites sufficient structure for performing that function.

Distinguishing earlier precedent, the CAFC determined that neither the sensor, control circuit, nor switching pre-means terms recited sufficient structure.

DESA argues that this court has previously stated that "it is clear that the term 'circuit' by itself connotes some structure." In Apex, however, the word "means" was not used, so the reverse presumption—i.e., that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply—was invoked.

Regarding interpretation of the claims, the CAFC found that the district court had improperly given the terms a narrow construction by focusing on the preferred embodiments and the figures.