The Court explained that a “bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure” for a means-plus-function claim. Id. (quoting Biomedino, LLC v. Water Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to select an appropriate algorithm, the Court held that the ’181 patent’s failure to disclose any algorithm rendered the asserted claims indefinite.

Jun.20.2007In Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp. (No. 2006-1350, June 18, 2007) the Federal Circuit affirms a district court’s invalidity determination based on the finding that the recited “control means for automatically operating valving” fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The parties agreed on the applicable claim function, as well as the fact that the only references in the specification to the “control means” are a box labeled “Control” in one of the figures, and a statement that the valving “may be controlled automatically by known differential pressure, valving and control equipment.”