Source: https://www.mbhb.com/intelligence/snippets/functional-claim-language-adapted-to-and-configured-to-having-narrow-interpretations
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:50:16+00:00

Document:
Patent claim drafting is a challenging exercise that requires balancing potential infringement of the claim against the prior art. A patent practitioner may easily draft a claim of very narrow scope, but if such claim has a low likelihood of being infringed, the value of the claim is extremely diminished.
Analyzing potential infringement of a claim requires consideration of who may be an infringer. An infringer is generally defined as “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor.” It is often desirable to draft a claim to potentially cover the possible infringing activities of making, using, or selling the patented invention. However, selection of claim terms, or even simple selection of verb tense in a claim, may limit infringement to only one category of infringing activity.
For inventions characterized by functional elements, a claim may recite a device or component of the device that is “configured to” or “adapted to” perform a function, in contrast to a claim that recites a device or component that “performs” the function. A claim that explicitly recites that a device “performs” a particular function raises a question of whether making or selling the device would infringe the claim, since neither the act of making or selling the device would generally require the device to actually perform the function (of course, an end user of the device could use the device to perform the claimed function, but patent holders generally avoid suing such parties).
Claims that recite a device that is “configured to” or “adapted to” perform a particular function have a greater likelihood that making or selling the device could infringe the claim. However, claims that recite such “configured to” or “adapted to” language have recently been construed by courts in a more limited manner similar to means-plus-function claim terms. This may have unintended consequences for claim drafters.
As one example, in In re Raymond Giannelli, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the claim term “adapted to” had been incorrectly construed to have the same meaning as “capable of.” Due to this overly broad interpretation of the claim term “adapted to,” the Federal Circuit reversed the final rejection of the patent claims.
The Board of Patent Appeals at the US Patent Office (the “Board”) characterized the dispositive issue as being whether the chest press machine was “capable of being used by exerting a pulling force on the handles in a rowing motion.” Affirming an obviousness rejection, the Board deemed it reasonable that a user could face the handles of the chest press machine of a prior art patent and exert a pulling force on its handles in a rowing motion.
Thus, using a narrow interpretation for the phrase “adapted to,” the Court found that the cited prior art failed to disclose handles that are adapted to be pulled in a rowing motion, but rather described a structure that “simulates as natural a human musculoskeletal outward pushing motion as possible while maintaining proper biomechanical alignment of the joints” and “the proper alignment of the wrists.” Although the result was positive for the applicant by requiring an interpretation of the claims that was more specific to the structure/function described in the patent application (using somewhat of a means-plus-function analysis) so as to distinguish over prior art, this holding may cause concern for how courts are now interpreting functional claim language.
Some interesting claim construction principles were also discussed in Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., which was a non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit in which the Court remanded the case for further clarification.
Superior alleged that Masaba infringed multiple claims of five patents directed towards a dump truck. In general, the patents asserted by Superior fell into two categories, referred to by the parties as the “undercarriage patents” and the “unloader patents.” The district court had previously construed multiple terms in the “unloader patents” to be consistent with the constructions proposed by Masaba, including constructions for the claim features of “configured to support an earthen ramp at a level even with the drive over surface,” and “frame member configured to support an end of an earthen ramp constructed against the frame member.” As a direct result of the claim constructions of the district court, Superior conceded that it could not prevail on its infringement claims against Masaba, and successfully moved for summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissal of Masaba’s invalidity counterclaims. Thereafter, Superior appealed the district court’s claim construction.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for clarification due to the district court’s failure to explain how its claim term constructions would affect the patentee’s infringement claims and for sufficient factual context. Although Superior acknowledged that it originally could not establish infringement under the district court’s claim construction, the district court’s opinion did not provide any context with respect to how disputed claim construction rulings related to accused products. Thus, the Federal Circuit felt that the missing context made it difficult to understand the issues and provide meaningful review.
As the courts continue to sort out how to interpret so-called functional claim terms, applicants may consider avoiding “adapted to,” “configured to,” or other possibly functional terms when unnecessary. But, in contrast to means-plus-function claim terms, “adapted to” or “configured to” is not currently an automatic trigger for the narrow interpretations limited to the structure/function described in the specification, and may depend on further details in the claims.
Optionally, a patent applicant may draft multiple claim sets including claims that have functional terms and claims without functional terms. With increasing excess claim fees, however, this is not always a practical option, and some choices must be made to balance cost with the potential risks of unwanted claim interpretations.
 In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2014).
 See Sta-Rite Indus., LLC v. ITT Corp., 682 F. Supp. 2d 738, 753 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (construing “adapted to,” in context, to mean “designed or configured to,” not “having the capacity to”); Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 3782840 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2006) (construing “adapted to,” in light of patent as a whole, to mean “configured to,” not “capable of”).
 Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 2013-1302, 2014 WL 163046 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2014).
 Id. at 5; see also Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hewlett–Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.