Summary judgment of indefiniteness in 112 P6 claim affirmed by CAFC

IBORMEITH IP, LLC v. MERCEDES
-
BENZ USA, LLC

The issue:


Ibormeith IP, LLC, the as
signee of U.S. Patent No.
6,313,749, appeals a district court’s
grant of summary judgment of indefiniteness
in favor of defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
and Daimler AG
(collectively,
“Mercedes”). We affirm.



AND



TO comply with
section 112(f),
the specification of
Ibormeith’s patent has to disclose a structure for perfor
ming the functions claimed in the “computational means”
limitation, (...)



AND


Section 112(f) allows patentees
to put structural details in to
the specification and build
into the literal coverage of the claim
a certain scope for equivalents in
performing a defined function.
See Chiuminatta Concrete
Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.,
145 F.3d 1303,1310 (Fed. Cir. 1998).



The result:


For a claim to bedefinite, a recited algorithm, or other type of structure for
a section 112(f) claim limitation, need not be so particularized as to
eliminate the need for any implementation
choices by a skilled artisan
; but it must be sufficiently
defined to render the bounds of the claim—
declared by
section 112(f)
to cover the particular structure and its
equivalents—understandable by the implementer.
See AllVoice Computing
PLC v. Nuance Comm’cns, Inc.
, 504F.3d 1236, 1245 - 46
(Fed. Cir. 2007).Here, we conclude,
the disclosed algorithm
does not adequately define the
structure.