Failure to Identify the "Means" in the Specification Invalidates Section 112, Paragraph 6 Claim

Maurice Mitchel Innovations, L.P. v. Intel Corporation, [2007-1108](September 24, 2007)[RADER, Moore, Yeakel] The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,875,154 was indefinite under 35 USC 112.
SIGNIFICANCE: "The quid pro quo for using a means-plus-function limitation requires specificity in reciting structure and linking that structure to the limitation."
BRIEF: Claim 1 of the '154 patent includes a claim limitation "means for causing said first and second switch means to remain in said non signal conducting state". The district court concluded this was a Section 112, Paragraph 6 limitation, but found no corresponding structure in the specification, and therefore held the patent claim indefinite. LOF: The review of indefiniteness under 35 USC 112 is a question of law, reviewed without deference. If an applicant employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit found no such disclosure in the specification, and rejected the disclosure of a complex integrated circuit in the specification as possible support for the claim language, without any explanation in the specification.