Means-Plus-Function Software Terms Defined With Algorithmic Structure Sufficient to Show Bounds of Terminology

In Allvoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (October 12, 2007), the Federal Circuit held that means-plus-function software claims were not indefinite where there was "sufficient algorithmic structure to give meaning to the claim terms from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan."

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, "The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." Claims 61 and 67 in U.S. Patent No. 5,799.273 related to an interface’s ability to perform functions "independent of" the connected application program. Claim 61 had two contested clauses: "means, independent of the one computer-related application, for forming link data linking a portion of the audio data to at least one of the recognised words independently of the one computer-related application;" and "means, independent of the one computer-related application, for updating position identifiers in response to changes in positions of the recognised words within the one computer-related application." The district court found claims 61 and 67 indefinite for failure to set forth sufficient algorithmic structure associated with the contested means-plus-function clauses. The district court further held that the disclosure at col.7 l.7, et seq., of the '273 patent, along with Figures 4 and 8A (above), did not constitute sufficient structure "for determining positions of the recognized words (claim 64 and indirectly claim 67) and for updating word positions after edits (claim 61)."

According to the appellate opinion by Circuit Judge Rader,

To the contrary, the specification contains sufficient algorithmic structure to give meaning to claims 61 and 67. Claim definiteness, as discussed earlier, depends on the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Miles Labs., Inc., 997 F.2d at 875. In software cases, therefore, algorithms in the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Med. Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[H]ere there would be no need for a disclosure of the specific program code if software were linked to the converting function and one skilled in the art would know the kind of program to use.") See also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc. , 319 F.3d. 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the internal circuitry of an electronic device need not be disclosed in the specification if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to build and modify the device). In that connection, this record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that the disclosure at col.7 l.7, et seq., of the '273 patent, along with Figures 4 and 8A of the patent, do not constitute sufficient structure to define the claim terms for the ordinarily skilled artisan.

To the contrary, the record contains the statement of Richard Sonnier. This statement set forth several straightforward ways that the algorithm represented in Figure 8A could be implemented by one skilled in the art using well-known features of the Windows operating system (messages, operating system function calls, and hooking). The Sonnier statement concluded with the observation that "[a] person skilled in the art reading the '273 specification would know that any of these techniques could be used to determine the position of a recognized word in the third party application, would know the software to use and how to implement it." Second Supplemental Sonnier Decl. ¶ 17. Thus, the record does contain sufficient algorithmic structure to give meaning to the claim terms from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, Mr. Sonnier supplied the only assessment in this record of the adequacy of the specification to disclose enough steps to constitute an actual algorithm for carrying out the functions claimed in the means-plus-function clauses of claims 61 and 67. Without any record evidence to contradict Sonnier’s assessment, this court discerns that the district court erred in this indefiniteness judgment as
well. Therefore, this court holds that claims 61 and 67 satisfy the definiteness
requirement.