Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments


Archived updates for Monday, August 08, 2005

Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Term Limited to Algorithm


In Harris Corporation v. Ericsson, Inc. (Fed. Cir. August 5, 2005), the court clarified that a computer-implemented means-plus-function clause can be limited to an algorithm, even when that algorithm is not recited in functional portion of the clause.

The claim in this case from U.S. Patent No. 4,365,338 (left) recited "a time domain processing means for simulating the time domain effect of said dispersive medium on signals transmitted through it by deducing prescribed characteristics of said medium, and for producing estimates of said information signals in accordance with a preselected relationship between said prescribed characteristics of said simulated effect and said known and received signals." The court began by noting that in WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Technology, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999), it could have relied on the function to limit the claim, but explicitly based the claim construction portion of its ruling on structure instead. WMS Gaming "rejected the argument that the corresponding structure was merely 'an algorithm executed by a computer,' holding instead that it was limited to the specific algorithm disclosed in the specification."

The [present] district court did not have the benefit of briefing on WMS Gaming, but this precedent establishes that corresponding structure of the "time domain
processing means" cannot be merely a "symbol processor," as the district court
held. The "symbol processor" construction does not incorporate any
disclosed algorithm. We hold that the corresponding structure for the "time
domain processing means" is a microprocessor programmed to carry out a two-step
algorithm in which the processor calculates generally nondiscrete estimates and
then selects the discrete value closest to each estimate.

Specifically, the patent discloses, as corresponding structure, a processor
37, "advantageously comprised of a pair of processors—a support processor (SUPP)
[37A] and a fast array processor (FAP) [37B,]" shown in Figure 4 and described
at col. 11, l. 37 – col. 12, l. 32, which is programmed to carry out the
disclosed "data recovery algorithm" illustrated in Figures 8A, 8B, and 9 and
described at col. 7, l. 18 – col. 8, l. 38; col. 13, l. 45 – col. 14, l. 20; and
col. 15, l. 2 – col. 16, l. 11. Processor 37A carries out the first part of the
algorithm: calculating the effect of the medium and applying it to the received
symbols. ’338 patent, col. 15, ll. 2-6. Processor 37B "examines the . . .
estimates and compares these codes with those corresponding to the code values
capable of being transmitted." Id. col. 15, ll. 13-17. Thus, each processor
performs one of the steps.

Aspects of this algorithm can vary based on implementation, as the specification implies. For example, the algorithm need not be applied to "an eight-ary PSK transmission scheme"; this is an "illustration of the effect of [the] thus-far described decision process as applied" to such a transmission scheme. Id. col. 15, ll. 27-29. The same "decision process" could be applied to another type of transmission scheme. Likewise, as Ericsson concedes, the corresponding structure of the "time domain processing means" is not limited to Equation (7) disclosed in column 8, line 30 of the patent. However, the specification characterizes the two-step process as "the col. 7, ll. 18-27. Thus, we reject Harris’s argument that the disclosed algorithm is broad enough to literally encompass one-step processes.

Figure 9 [above] illustrates how this algorithm is implemented. In Figure 9, the point labeled "A" represents the received symbol value. See id. col. 15, ll. 31-33. The point labeled "?B" represents the estimate obtained from the matrix calculations performed by processor 37A. The algorithm then involves the further step of choosing the allowed value that is closest to the estimate. In Figure 9’s example, this closest discrete value is 010. Id. col. 15, ll. 37-39.

Thus, the district court erred in holding that claims 1, 2, and 33 can cover systems that implement either a one-step or two-step process. The corresponding structure limits the "time domain processing means" to a two-step algorithm in which the processor calculates generally nondiscrete estimates and then selects the discrete value closest to each estimate, or structural equivalents thereof.

    (2)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send    

2 Comments:

Blogger Andrew Lahser said...

Listen to the Harris v. Ericsson opinion on your iPod or MP3 player.

August 22, 2005 1:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^Thanks!!

婚前徵信婚姻感情大陸抓姦外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚工商徵信婚前徵信外遇抓姦感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦離婚家暴工商徵信法律諮詢跟蹤工商徵信婚前徵信感情挽回外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴尋人大陸抓姦離婚大陸抓姦外遇尋人家暴工商徵信法律諮詢家暴感情挽回大陸抓姦外遇婚前徵信離婚尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信大陸抓姦尋人感情挽回外遇抓姦婚前徵信感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦工商徵信法律諮詢離婚家暴工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢離婚感情挽回婚前徵信外遇抓姦家暴尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回">徵大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢

April 07, 2009 4:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home