Source: http://www.jptos.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,default,0&cntnt01category=112%20-%20Means%20Plus&cntnt01returnid=80
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:10:35+00:00

Document:
Title Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2014).
[2: Means-Plus] [T]he district court also concluded that the limitation of claim 8, “distributed learning control module,” was a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. The district court then evaluated the specification and concluded that it failed to disclose the necessary algorithms for performing all of the claimed functions.
[1: Claim Construction] [W]e conclude that the district court incorrectly construed the graphical display terms to have a “pictorial map” limitation [because the e claim language itself contains no such limitation, and there is nothing in the intrinsic record to warrant narrow construction].
[2: Means-Plus] The district court here failed to give weight to the strong presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6, did not apply based on the absence of the word “means.” […] [I]n determining that the strong presumption was overcome, the district court erred: (1) in failing to appreciate that the word “module” has a number of dictionary meanings with structural connotations; (2) in placing undue emphasis on the word “module” separate and apart from the claimed expression “distributed learning control module”; and (3) in failing to give proper weight to the surrounding context of the rest of the claim language and the supporting text of the specification in reaching the conclusion that the drafter employed means- plus-function claiming.
Title Triton Tech. of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., No. 2013-1476 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2014).
Issue Each asserted claim [in the ‘181 patent] recites an “integrator means.” The district court held that this term rendered the asserted claims indefinite [because the ’181 patent broadly discloses using “numerical integration,” without specifying a class of algorithms that can be used to calculate definite integrals].
Triton Tech. of Tex., LLC at *3 (text added).
Title Elcommerce.com v. SAP AG, No. 2011-1369 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24,2014).
Elcommerce.com at *20-21 (text added, internal citations omitted).
Holdings Without evidence, ordinarily neither the district court nor this court can decide whether, for a specific function, the description in the specification is adequate from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. We do not of course hold that expert testimony will always be needed for every situation; but we do hold that there is no Federal Circuit or other prohibition on such expertise.
Id. at *29 (citation removed).
Title Vistan Corp. v. FIDEI USA, Inc., No. 13-1216, -1217 (non-precedential) (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2013).
Issue "[W]hether the disclosure of a “mechanical linear actuator” in the [U.S. Patent No. 5,870,949] specification is a sufficient description of structure that 'one skilled in the art will know and understand what structure corresponds' to the claim limitations." Vistan, at *6, 7 (text added, citation removed).
Holding "The evidence makes clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand mechanical linear actuators to be a distinct and identifiable class of actuators." Id. at *6.
Title Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2013-1007 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2013).
Issue "To comply with section 112(f), the specification of Ibormeith’s patent has to disclose a structure for performing the functions claimed in the “computational means” limitation, the statute providing that the claim limitation covers that disclosed structure and its equivalents. If there is no such structure, the claim limitation is indefinite, i.e., fails to “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention, because there is insufficient definition of something that, by virtue of section 112(f), is incorporated into the claim."
Ibormeith IP, LLC at *5.
Holding "[Based on the binding admission of the patentee's own expert witness that the addition algorithm of the specification is only a general template encompassing many weighting operations] […] the two figures [of the specification] provide raw circadian information that a person of ordinary skill in the art could use to design his or her own method of weighting. A description of an algorithm that places no limitations on how values are calculated, combined, or weighted is insufficient to make the bounds of the claim understandable."
Id. at 11-23 (text added).

References: v. 
 § 112
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.