April 11, 2023
Authored and Edited by Jameson K. Gardner, Ph.D.; Umber Aggarwal; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Rakuten Rewards v. International Business Machines Corp.,[1] the PTAB denied institution because Petitioner admitted that the corresponding structure that it proposed for a means-plus function limitation was not clearly linked to or associated with the recited functions, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Petitioner Ebates filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1-13 of Patent Owner IBM’s U.S. Patent No. 6,785,676 (“the ’676 patent”) as being unpatentable under obviousness grounds. The ’676 patent is directed to using an adaptive algorithm that incorporates contextual information to order and present query results for a user in a beneficial manner. Relevant portions of claim 1 are reproduced below with emphasis added:
mechanism for receiving a resource response set of results obtained in response to a current user query;
mechanism for receiving a user context vector associated with said current user query, said user context vector comprising data associating an interaction state with said user and including context that is a function of the user; and
…
Petitioner construed the two “mechanism for” limitations in claim 1 as means-plus function limitations, which requires identifying corresponding structure that is supported in the specification and associated with the recited functions. Petitioner first asserted that the “mechanism” limitations were indefinite for lacking support for any corresponding structure in the ’676 specification. However, after acknowledging that indefiniteness is not a proper ground for an IPR, Petitioner then asked the Board to construe the limitations, “for the purposes of the [IPR],” to include a general-purpose computer as the corresponding structure and overlook the alleged lack of sufficient support in the specification for any corresponding structure.
The Board declined to accept Petitioner’s request and, consequently, denied institution due to Petitioner’s attempt to proffer a means-plus function construction for the “mechanism” terms that it admitted to being incorrect, thus violating 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). In doing so, the Board never reached the merits of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds.
Petitioner construed the “mechanism” limitations as means-plus function terms, which invokes certain petition requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104. Specifically, section (b)(3) of this regulation requires identifying “specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” when construing a means-plus function limitation. Here, the Board found that Petitioner failed to meet this requirement. The Board acknowledged Petitioner’s position that the “mechanism” terms should be construed to have a corresponding structure of a general-purpose computer. However, this contradicted Petitioner’s indefiniteness statements asserting that “neither a general-purpose computer nor any other structure in the ’676 patent is clearly linked or associated with the recited functions.” The Board rejected “general purpose computer” as the appropriate corresponding structure for the “mechanism” terms because Petitioner clearly stated that the specification did not support such an interpretation. Accordingly, the Board denied institution due to the Petitioner’s failure to construe the challenged claims, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
This decision serves as a reminder for Petitioners that the Board may not entertain a party’s proposed corresponding structure for a mean-plus function limitation when the party admits such structure is improper to perform the functions recited in the limitation.
[1] IPR 2022-00439, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2022)
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.