From 112p6:
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.
How is this equivalence evaluated?
How would the equivalence be evaluated if the specification would explicitly include a statement defining what is to be considered as equivalent, in a functional language?
...
Suppose there would be a claim element such as:
means for ink delivery
And that the specification would include a statement such as:
(a) A tube can be used for delivery of ink from point B to point C, and thus a tube is a mean for ink delivery.
(b) Any collection of means that support delivery of ink from point B to point C, shall be regarded as means for ink delivery, and shell be regarded as equivalent to any other collection of means that support delivery of ink from point B to point C. The collection may include one or more elements, and if more than one element is included, the collection include also any configuration, and relations between the elements.
Would such a specification statement dictate the aspect by which the equivalence is measured, and thus serve to include all functionally equivalent means?
Interesting links:
IMS Technology, Inc. v. HAAS Automation, Inc :
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1019.htmlhttp://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/161980698_2.htmlSeems like the courts are divided on how to evaluate this equivalence.
Author
Topic: Structural vs. Means plus function claims? (Read 5980 times)
