0

Certain opinions I've been reading lead me to believe that a claim to anything performed by a "computer" (or equivalent) is always "functional" and runs afoul of rules prohibiting pure functional claiming unless it is interpreted as invoking 112(f). At the same time, certain sources purport to give tips on how to avoid MPF all the same, such as this - though it is admittedly not computer-centric.

Are there any examples of a non-MPF computer-implemented claim limitation being upheld by the CAFC post-Williamson (where the potential MPF interpretation has been properly raised by the opposing counsel[1])?

[1] That is to say, not Dyfan/VDPP, which were supposedly incorrectly litigated.

1 Answer 1

0

There probably aren't direct examples of what I'm asking as such but having looked at Dyfan more closely it seems the opinion cites some other cases for the position that what would normally be considered a "nonce" term like 'circuit' can sometimes "connote (at least some) structure" and, if coupled with a description of the term's operations" can be an example of a valid non-MPF computer-implemented claim limitation (if we view a computer as a special case of a circuit).

Also, there is examination guidance that supposes the existence of such claim limitations (see section II), but no pointer to a case involving such a claim limitation that actually discusses whether 112(f) potentially applies.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .