Source: http://www.finnegan.com/publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetail.aspx?pub=ec8d1f47-06d0-42f4-9d34-c34dd57c878d
Timestamp: 2017-08-16 19:33:57
Document Index: 8724927

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112']

Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Patent and Trademark Office | Federal Circuit Court Decisions | Finnegan
Home > Resources > Federal Circuit Court Decisions > Appeal from Board’s Improper Application of Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction Spurs Call for En Banc Decision on Proper Standard of Review
Appeal from Board’s Improper Application of Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction Spurs Call for En Banc Decision on Proper Standard of Review
In Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, No. 11-1476 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s conclusion on inter partes reexamination that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,178 (“the ’178 patent”) were obvious, but corrected the Board’s analysis by not construing the disputed claims as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
The ’178 patent is owned by Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC (“Flo”) and is directed to a mobile computer workstation intended for medical care environments. Flo sued Rioux Vision, Inc. (“Rioux”) for patent infringement, and Rioux requested reexamination of the ’178 patent. The PTO found substantial new questions of patentability with respect to the ’178 patent’s claims, and the examiner objected to some claims and rejected others as obvious. In response to an Action Closing Prosecution, Flo amended the objected claims to place them in allowable format and argued that the rejections as to claims reciting a “height adjustment mechanism” were improper, because that limitation is a means-plus-function limitation that invokes § 112, ¶ 6. The examiner issued a Right of Appeal Notice maintaining the rejections. The Board agreed with Flo that the “height adjustment mechanism” limitation must be interpreted in accordance with § 112, ¶ 6, but affirmed the rejections after construing the limitation as not requiring a length-adjustable vertical beam. Flo appealed to the Federal Circuit.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit first held that the Board erred in finding that the “height adjustment mechanism” limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6. The Court explained that failure to use the word “means” in the claim created a rebuttable presumption that the drafter did not intend the claims to be governed by
§ 112, ¶ 6, and that this presumption is strong and not readily overcome. The Court stated that it is unwilling to apply § 112, ¶ 6 “without a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.” Slip op. at 10 (citing Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The Court found that the “height adjustment mechanism” term, as used in the ’178 patent and in common parlance, reasonably imparted sufficient structure such that the presumption was not overcome.
Summary authored by Amanda L. Lutz, law clerk at Finnegan.