A Means-Plus-Function Claim Was Found Unpatentable As Indefinite For Absence of Corresponding Structure CBM2014-00140, 148

LinkedInTwitterFacebookGoogle+Share

Takeaway: In a means-plus-function claim, the absence of corresponding structure in the specification to perform the claimed function may render the claim indefinite.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-18 and 20-23 of the ’168 patent are unpatentable. The Board describes the ’168 patent as relating to a system and method for allowing the purchase of products using hand-held devices without requiring the user of the hand-held device to enter payment information for each sales transaction. Petitioner challenged the patentability of ’168 as follows: anticipation of claims 12-16, 18, and 19 by Gerson; obviousness of claims 1-11 and 20-23 over Gerson and Wronski; anticipation of claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 20-23 by Demoff; and indefiniteness of claim 17. Continue reading