1. Means Plus Function (35 U.S.C. § 112) 2018 Sughrue Mion Training for
(Topic # 6)
Means Plus Function
(35 U.S.C. § 112)
2018 Sughrue Mion Training for
Korea Electronics Association (KEA)
Christopher J. Bezak

2. Disclaimer
This presentation is for educational purposes only, and does not provide legal advice, or comment on the application of US law or USPTO regulations to any specific patent or application. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of Sughrue Mion, PLLC or any of its clients.

3. Overview Introduction Identifying Means Plus Function Limitations
Corresponding Structure
Identifying the Function
Conclusions

4. 1. Introduction

5. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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.
July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 798

6. Legal Effect
No particular or specific structure is required to be recited in the claim
Means plus function claims are interpreted with reference structures set forth in the specification
To infringe a means plus function claim, the identical function and an equivalent structure must be found
Historically, there was a belief that means-plus-function claim element limitations were broader in scope than structural element limitations, which included any means that performed the recited function
For mechanical claims, this might be true
For software claims, this might be false

7. 2. Identifying Means Plus Function Limitations

8. Three Step Process Means-plus-function (MPF)
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
In re Donaldson, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

9. Step A: Means and Step (1st Presumption)
The claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph when it explicitly uses the term "means" or "step" and includes functional language
That presumption is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function
TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, , 85 USPQ2d 1787, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure."); see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Strong presumption ("means" requires means plus function interpretation ) rarely overcome
Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

10. Step A: Overcoming the (1st) Presumption
Must consider "whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure"
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Means plus function interpretation will not apply if the skilled artisan would have understood the term to be the name for the structure that performs the function, "even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies structures by their function"
"system memory means" and "digital logic means"
TecSec, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
"wireless device means"
Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L., 859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
"detector"
Personalized Media Communications v. International Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
"connector assembly"
Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

11. Step A: Generic Placeholder
What is a "generic placeholder"?
Simply a substitute for the term "means"
In general, "nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs"
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)
Examples: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, , 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

12. Step A: Generic Placeholder (2nd Presumption)
A claim limitation that does not use the term "means" or "step" will trigger the rebuttable presumption that means plus function interpretation does not apply
See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1310, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, , 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1886–87 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
The presumption is overcome when "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.'"
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
"The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure"
Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

13. Step A: Overcoming the (2nd) Presumption
Must consider "whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure"
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Does the "modifier" provide structure for the generic (nonce) word?
"detent mechanism"
"digital detector"
"reciprocating member"
"connector assembly"
"sealingly connected joints"
"eyeglass hanger member"
"aesthetic correction circuitry"
No means plus function interpretation if structural modifier exists coupled with a generic (nonce) word
Specification
Dictionary
Prior art

14. Step B
The term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language
Transition word
"for" (e.g., "means for")
"configured to" (e.g., "means configured to")
"so that" (e.g., "means so that")
Function
It must be clear that the element in the claims is set forth, at least in part, by the function performed as opposed to the specific structure, material, or acts that perform the function
York Prod., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1574, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1624 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
The mere use of the term "means" with no associated function rebuts the presumption that means plus function interpretation is invoked
"memory means" or "processor means"

15. Step C
"means" or "step" or the generic placeholder must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function
"positioning means for moving" did not invoke means plus function interpretation because the claim further provided a list of the structure underlying the means and the detailed recitation of the structure
"positioning means for moving said transducer means between the concentrically adjacent tracks on said micro hard-disk, said positioning means including: two support arms … a pivot shaft … a positioning arm … a bearing assembly … a stepper motor … a tensioned steel band"
Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1303–04, 50 USPQ2d 1429, 1435–36 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
Rarely at issue

16. 3. Corresponding Structure

17. Identifying Structure
Corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means (or step) plus function limitation must be disclosed in the specification in a way that skilled artisan would have understood what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function.
Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
Disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent (not obvious) in the specification so long as clear to the skilled artisan what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means (or step) plus function claim limitation
Two-step process: (1) identify function, (2) identify structure that performs function

18. General Statements
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness
Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
"[A] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Disclosure that an invention "may be controlled by known differential pressure, valving and control equipment" was not a disclosure of any structure corresponding to the claimed "control means for operating [a] valving " and the claim was held indefinite)

19. 112(a) v. 112(f)
Means plus function limitation can be enabled and satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), but not satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Enablement of a device requires only the disclosure of sufficient information so that a person of ordinary skill in the art could make and use the device. A section 112[(f) or pre-AIA] paragraph 6 disclosure, however, serves the very different purpose of limiting the scope of the claim to the particular structure disclosed, together with equivalents. … For example, in Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380[, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230] (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court embraced the proposition that 'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.' It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. The court in Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953[, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123] (Fed. Cir. 2007), put the point this way: "The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure."
Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, , 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

20. Software
"[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, 'the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.'" MPEP § 2181.
In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)
Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." MPEP § 2181.
Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, , 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir.1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945

21. Williamson v. Citrix Summary
Increases the likelihood that claims will invoke means plus function interpretation
Overturns former standard of "strong" presumption that claims without reciting "means" do not invoke means plus function interpretation
Prevents pure functional claiming in software
Increased focus on computer algorithm
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (Williamson II), 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)
Limitations using the generic word "module" subject to interpretation as a means-plus-function limitation ("distributed learning control module")
Found invalid as indefinite for failure to disclose structure (algorithm)

22. Standard
"Henceforth, we will apply the presumption as we have done prior to Lighting World [v. Birchwood Lighting, 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 3, 2004)], without requiring any heightened evidentiary showing and expressly overrule the characterization of that presumption as "strong."  We also overrule the strict requirement of "a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure."
"The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure. Greenberg, 91 F.3d at  When a claim lacks the word "means", the presumption can be overcome and § 112 par. 6 [or § 112(f) for post AIA patents] will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to "recite sufficiently definite structure" or else recites "function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function." Watts, 232 F.3d at 880.  The converse presumption remains unaffected: "use of the word 'means' creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies." Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703."

23. Background
U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 relates to providing a virtual classroom ("distributed learning") environment (one or more teachers connected to geographically remote students)
Server (102) implements virtual classroom between teacher computer (106) and student computer (108)

24. Claim
8. A system for conducting distributed learning among a plurality of computer systems coupled to a network, the system comprising:
a presenter computer system of the plurality of computer systems coupled to the network and comprising:
a content selection control for defining at least one remote streaming data source and for selecting one of the remote streaming data sources for viewing; and
a presenter streaming data viewer for displaying data produced by the selected remote streaming data source;
an audience member computer system of the plurality of computer systems and coupled to the presenter computer system via the network, the audience member computer system comprising:
an audience member streaming data viewer for displaying the data produced by the selected remote streaming data source; and
a distributed learning server remote from the presenter and audience member computer systems of the plurality of computer systems and coupled to the presenter computer system and the audience member computer system via the network and comprising:
a streaming data module for providing the streaming data from the remote streaming data source selected with the content selection control to the presenter and audience member computer systems; and
a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module.

25. Issues
Does "distributed learning control module" invoke means plus function interpretation without using "means"?
Does "distributed learning control module" have a well understood meaning in computer technology?
Does the specification adequately support "distributed learning control module" by disclosure of an algorithm?

26. Step A: "module"
"a distributed learning control module for receiving …"
No recitation of "means"
(2nd) Presumption that means plus function interpretation does not apply
Replaces "means" with "module"
Nonce word
Generic description for hardware and/or software
No indication of particular structure
Means plus function interpretation applies (2nd presumption overcome) unless …

27. Step A: "distributed learning control"
"a distributed learning control module for receiving …"
Does the "modifier" ("distributed learning control") provide structure for the generic (nonce) word?
Recall: "digital detector," "reciprocating member," "sealingly connected joints," "eyeglass hanger member," "aesthetic correction circuitry"
Look to the claim itself
Claim does not describe how the "distributed learning control module" interacts with other components in the distributed learning control server "for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module"

28. Step A: "distributed learning control"
Expert Declaration
"as one of ordinary skill in the art, reading the specification, I would know exactly how to program" a computer to perform the recited functions
The structure "could be in software or it could be in hardware"
Recall: "digital detector," "reciprocating member," "sealingly connected joints," "eyeglass hanger member," "aesthetic correction circuitry"
The fact that one of skill in the art could program a computer to perform the recited functions cannot create structure where none otherwise is disclosed
(2nd) Presumption that means plus function interpretation does not apply is overcome

29. Step B and Step C Functional language (Step B)
"a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module"
Generic placeholder is not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function (Step C)
Claims do not specify how "receiving," "relaying," and "coordinating" are performed
Means plus function interpretation applies

30. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
Identify the function (Step 1)
"a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module"
Three (3) functions
Structure must be found for each function
"distributed learning control module" cannot be implemented in a general purpose computer, but instead must be implemented in a special purpose computer because the distributed learning control module has specialized functions outlined in the specification

31. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 at column 5, lines 48 to 65:
FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating the functional units of the DLS 102, including a distributed learning control module (DLCM) 310, a classroom environment module 312, and a streaming data module 314. The DLCM 310 controls the communications among the various computer systems 106, 108 in the distributed learning system 100 and manages the other modules in the DLS 102. A preferred embodiment of the DLCM 310 executes an operating system like MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT® or SUN MICROSYSTEMS SOLARIS® 2.x and uses a hypertext transport protocol (HTTP)-based web server, like NETSCAPE ENTERPRISE SERVER 2.0 or the APACHE web server, to receive and respond to requests for data from the other computer systems 106, 108.
In addition, the DLCM 310 preferably includes software written in JAVASCRIPT and C++ providing auto-sensing capabilities for verifying that the participants' computer systems 106, 108 meet the hardware and software requirements for participating in the distributed learning session. For example, the auto-sensing capabilities determine whether the participants' computer systems 106, 108 support the correct display settings, browser and JAVA versions, and needed bandwidth. Moreover, the DLCM 310 software preferably provides the participants' computer systems 106, 108 with the instructions for creating the properly-sized program windows and controls the content displayed therein. The DLCM 310 also includes authentication services for providing security to the participants and provides a presenter with streaming media selection functionality to enable configuring streaming media networks in an ad hoc fashion. The capabilities and controls supplied by the DLCM 310 are described in more detail below.

32. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 at column 6, lines 32 to 45:
In addition to the control provided by the classroom environment module 312, the streaming data module 314 provides one or more streaming data feeds to the presenter 106 and audience member 108 computer systems. As used herein, "streaming" refers to serial or parallel transmission of digital data between two computers by transmitting sequences of live or pre-recorded bit packets. A preferred embodiment of the streaming data module 314 uses the GTS Audio and Video Servers from Graham Technology Solutions, Inc., Cupertino, Calif. The streaming data module 314 receives streaming data, including video and audio data, from a computer system 106, 108 or remote feed 112 coupled to the network 104 and provides it to the other computer systems 106, 108.

33. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840: FIG. 3 (block diagram of software)

34. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840: FIG. 4 (presenter display interface)

35. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840: FIG. 5 (presenter display interface)

36. Corresponding Structure (Algorithm)
Expert testimony cannot supplant the total absence of structure from the specification
Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005))
Prohibition against using expert testimony results from language of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which requires specification to disclose corresponding structure
No structure, claim is indefinite

37. How Much Structure?
"a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module"
Sufficient structure for "receiving communications"
Sufficient structure for "relaying the communications"
Insufficient structure for "coordinating"
Does a server and operating system inherently "coordinate the operation" of a module (software) that streams data?

38. Katz
General purpose computer usually only sufficient as the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function (e.g., "means for storing data")
"Those cases involved specific functions that would need to be implemented by programming a general purpose computer to convert it into a special purpose computer capable of performing those specified functions. By contrast, in the seven claims identified above, Katz has not claimed a specific function performed by a special purpose computer, but has simply recited the claimed functions of 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing.' Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' discussed below, those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions. Those seven claims do not run afoul of the rule against purely functional claiming, because the functions of 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing' are coextensive with the structure disclosed, i.e., a general purpose processor."
In In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

39. Katz Exception
A microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is "coextensive" with a microprocessor itself
Examples: "receiving" data, "storing" data, and "processing" data
"Special programming" does not denote a level of complexity, but instead only whether functionality is coextensive with microprocessor or general purpose computer
Person of ordinary skill in the art "plays no role whatsoever in determining whether an algorithm must be disclosed as structure for a functional claim element"

40. 4. Identifying the Function

41. WMS Gaming v. IGT Summary
For a means-plus-function limitation to read (literally) on an accused device, the accused device must employ means identical or equivalent the structures, material, or acts described in the patent specification
The accused device must also perform the identical functions as specified in the claims
The identical function was not shown, but infringement was found under the Doctrine of Equivalents
WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

42. Background
U.S. Patent No. 4,448,419 relates to utilizing a random number generator to determine a stop position on a slot machine
Odds of winning are reduced by assigning multiple randomly generated numbers to physical locations on a payout wheel

43. Claim
1. A game apparatus, comprising: a reel mounted for rotation about an axis through a predetermined number of radial positions; means to start rotation of said reel about said axis; indicia fixed to said reel to indicate the angular rotational position of said reel; means for assigning a plurality of numbers representing said angular positions of said reel, said plurality of numbers exceeding said predetermined number of radial positions such that some rotational positions are represented by a plurality of numbers; means for randomly selecting one of said plurality of assigned numbers; and means for stopping said reel at the angular position represented by said selected number.

44. Algorithm
Figure 6 illustrates the algorithm by which "means for assigning" is performed
1) the range of single numbers exceeds the number of stop positions;
2) each single number is assigned to only one stop position;
3) each stop position is assigned at least one single number; and
4) at least one stop position is assigned more than one single number
The structure of a microprocessor programmed to carry out an algorithm is limited by the disclosed algorithm in Figure 6

45. Accused Device
Random number generator selects a first number (R1) from a known range, and the selected number is mapped to a first payoff multiplier (X). Id., Figure 5. R1 is randomly chosen from the range of 1 to 632. If R1 is one, then payoff multiplier X is 10, if R1 is between 182 and 632, then payoff multiplier X is zero, etc. The random number generator then selects another number (R2) from a second range of numbers, and R2 is mapped to a second payoff multiplier (Y). Id., Figure 6. The actual payoff [**8] amount (Z) is determined by multiplying X times Y. Id., col. 3, lines For example, if X is 10 and Y is 10, the actual payoff amount is 100. Alternatively, if X is 10 and Y is zero, the actual payoff amount is zero.
RANDOM
QUANTITY
MULTIPLIER "X"
NUMBERS 1 10
2 - 31 30 2
150
451
RANDON
QUANTITY
MULTIPLIER "Y"
NUMBERS 1
100
2 - 23 22 10
236 5
137

46. Accused Device
Once the actual payoff amount is determined, the WMS 400 slot machine uses the random number generator to select a group of stop positions that match the payoff amount. Id., col. 4, lines 1-7. For example, eight different groups of stop positions may represent a payoff amount of 100. Id., Figure 7. If the payoff amount is 100, then the random number generator selects a third number (R3) between one and eight (because as indicated in Fig. 7, there are eight possible ways of displaying a payoff of 100), and the slot machine displays a group of stop positions that corresponds to the selected number. Id., Figure 8.
PAYOFF
WAYS TO DISPLAY
SYMBOL COMBIN.
"Z" VALUE
DISPLAYED
1000 1
777
200
= = =
100 8 50 27
- - - 20
180
ANY 3 BARS 10
343
ANY 3 BLANKS
REEL STOP POSITIONS
DISPLAYING 3
MEMORY LOCATION
DOUBLE BARS A B C D E F G H

47. Algorithm Comparisons
"means for assigning" requires assigning and selecting a single number
Accused device assigns and selects combinations of numbers rather than single numbers
Accused device does not perform a function identical to that of the claim
No equivalent structure and no literal infringement

48. 5. Conclusions

49. Conclusions
Rule how to identify whether means plus function interpretation should be invoked (Williamson)
Sometimes uncertain how to describe an algorithm in support of a means plus function limitation
Sometimes uncertain whether specification disclosure is sufficient to support a means plus function limitation
Computer implemented means plus function limitations appear broad, but are construed to encompass the algorithm

50. Questions?

51. Thank you! (고맙습니다)