TO AVOID 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6A CLAIM TERM NEED NOT DENOTE A SPECIFIC STRUCTURE; IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE TERM IS USED IN COMMON PARLANCE

Duratech Industries International, Inc. v. Bridgeview Manufacturing, Inc., [2008-1157] (September 12, 2008) [RADER, Michel, Schall] NON-PRECEDENTIAL The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded judgement of non infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,375,104 because the district court incorrectly construed the critical claim element of the patent as a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6.
DISCUSSION: At issue was the claim limitation “a manipulator mounted inside the container for driving the crop material into the disintegrator” which the district court construed as a means-plus-function element. A patentee’s use of the word “means” in a claim limitation creates a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 6 applies, and conversely a claim term without the word “means” suggests that § 112, paragraph 6 does not apply. Means-plus-function claiming applies only to purely functional limitations that do not provide the structure that performs the recited function, and in considering whether a claim term recites sufficient structure to avoid application of section 112 P 6, the Federal Circuit has not required the claim term to denote a specific structure – it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function. Noting first the presumption arising from the absence of the word “means” and the ordinary meaning of “manipulator”, the Federal Circuit held that the disputed claim limitation was not a means-plus-function element