Ex parte Rodriguez

Case Number: CLB0307

Date: 10.01.2009

Citation: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (precedential opinion)

The absence of the term “means for” in a claim does not necessarily mean that 35 U.S.C. § 112 (6) doesn’t apply, but rather triggers a rebuttable presumption.

Download PDF

Tagged In:

35 U.S.C. §112 (1) 35 U.S.C. §112 (2) 35 U.S.C. §112 (6) means-plus-function language means-plus-function presumption software claims.
Return to Case Law Briefs Main Page