Judge Ronald M. Whyte affirmed by CAFC in Nazomi case
Contrary to Nazomi, there is nothing unusual or improper in
construing device claims to require particular functionality.
See, e.g., Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc. ,
659 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011); K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The cases on which Nazomi relies do not support its position.
For example, in Intel Corporation v. U.S. Inter-national Trade Commission
, the claims only required “programmable selection means,”
and the accused product infringed because it could be programmed to
perform the infringing use. 946 F.2d 821, 832(Fed.Cir. 1991) .