Source: https://www.hdp.com/blog/2017/02/20/ptab-invokes-35-u-s-c-%C2%A7-1126-to-construe-patent-claim-term-during-ipr-proceeding/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:35:31+00:00

Document:
Despite each parties’ failure to address the issue regarding the claim term “drive module,” the PTAB decided to consider the issue because the term “module” is “a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
More specifically, the PTAB looked to the Specification of the patent at issue to try and identify corresponding structure for the claimed functionality. The corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be must be “more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor” to avoid impermissible functional claiming, unless certain narrow exceptions concerning generic computer functions apply. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In other words, simply reciting the claimed functionality in the Specification but failing to describe how the computer or processor implements the functionality is not a sufficient disclosure of a corresponding algorithm. In practice, claimed functionality should be supported by a step-by-step flow diagram along with corresponding description within the Specification in order to support any potential claim terms that could be construed as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Since the Specification failed to disclose sufficient structure for the “drive module” limitation, the PTAB was not able to determine the scope and the meaning of claim 12 and its dependent claims since the dependent claims also failed to cure the deficiencies of claim 12.
While petitioners cannot challenge a patent utilizing 35 U.S.C. §112 within an IPR proceeding, practitioners should be aware that the PTAB can utilize §112 during claim construction.
Additionally, in a broader scope, practitioners should be mindful to include underlying steps for each recited function when a claim term could be construed as a means-plus-function claim recitation.

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