Nested Functional Language: Intended Use Or Limitation?

Law360, New York (May 7, 2013, 12:21 PM EDT) -- On Feb. 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released In re Jasinski, a nonprecedential opinion[1] overturning a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI") ruling. The BPAI had issued a decision upholding a rejection of a method claim based on an anticipatory reference by reasoning that functional language used in the method claim was not a limitation.[2] The functional language was cited in the body of the claim and nested within another functional phrase as follows: "comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software."[3] The BPAI deemed the functional language "to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software" to be merely a statement of intended use.[4]...

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.

A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!