PTAB Denies Inter Partes Review Because Means­Plus­Function Claims Could Not Be Construed

May 12, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

The ’435 patent is generally “directed to a system and method for processing mortgage loan data.” Independent claim 1, the only independent claim challenged by the petitioner, was written in means­plus­function form. The PTAB focused on two particular means­plus­function limitations as dispositive: (1) “means for reviewing the loan application data to determine completeness” and (2) “means for completing the loan application whenever loan application data is incomplete by contacting the loan originator.”

Under well­established Federal Circuit precedent, in computer­implemented inventions that use means­plusfunction claiming, “the structure disclosed in the specification [must] be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.” Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2014­1392, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2015) (quoting Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.

Cir. 2008)). As the structure corresponding to the “means for reviewing” and “means for completing” limitations in the challenged claims, the petitioner identified portions of the specification discussing “a computerized system with program software operable to perform” certain functions.

The PTAB found two flaws with the petitioner’s position. First, the PTAB determined that the cited passages spoke in general terms and did not adequately tie the claimed function to the disclosed structure: “The passages . . . discuss the computer components generally employed in various portions of the ’435 patent’s computer system, but are not linked to the recited ‘reviewing” and “completing’ functions.” Second, the PTAB noted the rule that “the corresponding structure . . . must be more than simply a general purpose computer,” and concluded that “petitioner has failed even to establish that the structure corresponding to the recited ‘reviewing’ and ‘completing’ functions is a general purpose computer.” For these reasons, the PTAB was unable to construe the challenged claims and denied inter partes review.

Although the petitioner here lost its bid to challenge the claims at the PTAB, denial decisions like this may prove valuable in related district court litigation. For example, the PTAB’s determination that it cannot construe the asserted claims may support an argument that the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the very reasons articulated by the PTAB.

Askeladden LLC v. iSourceloans LLC, IPR2015­00134 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Rice, Daniels, & Plenzler, JJ.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.