CAFC: A Picture is Worth More Than a Thousand Words -- It Supports Means Plus Function Claim

Freeman, et al. v. Gerber Products Company, et al., 04-1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005) NON-PRECEDENTIAL. The Federal reversed summary judgment of indefiniteness of means-plus-function claims, and remanded. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, a structure disclosed in the specification “corresponds” to a means plus function clause if the specification of prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the recited function. If the disclosure of the corresponding structure is inadequate, then the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. The adequacy of the disclosure is judges from the perspective of one skilled in the art. Disclosure in drawings is sufficient where a person of skill in the art would understand that the structure in the drawings corresponds to the means plus function claims. The Federal Circuit distinguished prior cases where disclosure in drawings was insufficient by pointing out in those cases some corresponding structure was specifically identified in the specification, and it was not clear that other structure in the drawings also corresponding.
NOTE: Showing the corresponding structure in the drawings can be enough, but if some corresponding structure is expressly disclosed and other corresponding structure is merely shown in the drawings, the structure shown only in the drawings may not be covered.