Means Plus Function Claims and Corresponding Structures

Abstract

Means Plus Function claims emanates from Statute. 35 USC 112(6) states that an element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.Means clauses suggest a simple method for broadly defining an element by its function rather than by narrowly defining it based on physical characteristics. Examples of mean clauses are:(I) Means for acquiring a plurality of images from a plurality of separate imaging sources.(II) Pumping means for pumping fuel into the reservoir, said means being located within the reservoir in the region of the opening and including a nozzle and a venturi tube in alignment with the nozzle.(III) Providing means for transmitting said presentations to a selected media venue of the media venues.However, using the terms ‘means’ does not always mean that the claim is a means plus function claim. Likewise the lack of term means does not always mean that a claim is not in means plus function form.It is always a complicated question as to whether or not to use such claims in an application, as they may narrow the scope of the patent protection through their dependence on what is described in the specification. On the other hand, such claims may be a complete, simple and elegant way to claim an invention that uses various types of a certain limitation. This Paper seeks to clarify Means-plus-function claims as controversial part of claim drafting in the backdrop of decisions held by Federal Courts.