Failure to Identify MPF Structure Tanks Petition

Jones Day
Contact

Jones Day

On June 18, 2020, the Board denied an IPR petition because the Petitioner failed to sufficiently construe the means-plus-limitations of the challenged claims.

Mattersight Corporation (“Mattersight”) owns the challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,023,639 (“the ‘639 Patent”), which is directed to a method and system for determining the complexity of telephonic communications received by a call center.  CallMiner, Inc. (“CallMiner”) petitioned for IPR of the ‘639 Patent, asserting therein that the challenged claims recited several means-plus-function limitations, specifically limitations reciting the term “a code segment for . . . .”  The petition included a table allegedly identifying the proposed function and structure of the means-plus-function limitations, but the Board held that this fell short of the claim construction requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).

Section 42.104(b)(3) requires identification of the corresponding structure in the specification for means-plus-function terms.  The Petitioner’s table identified the alleged function of each of the means-plus-function terms in bold italics, and merely listed string cites to broad portions of the patent specification to identify the alleged structure.  The Board agreed with the Patent Owner that the “Petitioner’s citation to broad portions of the specification and multiple figures, absent any explanation or identification of structure, do not fulfill Petitioner’s obligation to identify corresponding structure under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).”  Decision at 13.  The Board declined to review large portions of the specification to determine the corresponding structure of the means-plus-function terms, and also refused to take a position on whether the claims are indefinite.  Because the Petitioner failed to construe the claims as required by § 42.104(b)(3), the Board found that Petitioner also failed to show how, so construed, the challenged claims are unpatentable.

Takeaway:  Broad petition citations to the specification alone may not satisfy the PTAB’s claim construction requirements for means-plus-function terms.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Jones Day | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Jones Day
Contact
more
less

Jones Day on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.