In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, the Federal Circuit found that the omission of the word “means” does not justify a “strong” presumption that a claim limitation is not subject to section 112, para. 6. This appears to be an effort by the court to address concerns that some patent claims directed to computer-implemented or software inventions are too broad or vague on claim limitations directed to general functionality, rather than specific structure or algorithms.
The court’s decision states “when a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the presumption can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’”
The decision also holds that “[u]nder 35 U.S.C. § 112, paras. 2 and 6…if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a means-plus-function clause is indefinite.”
Per the National Law Review, “When drafting a specification, patent applicants will need to resolve the level of structural or algorithm support required for terminology they believe has recognized structure. Applicants should be careful to define elements potentially seen as nonce words with exemplary structural support, and should consider providing exemplary non-limiting algorithms when practical.”