How is the phrase "means for" typically used in a claim?

How is the phrase "means for" typically used in a claim?

• A. To specify the exact materials needed for the invention
• B. To describe functional aspects of a device or method
• C. To detail the inventor's contribution to the field
• D. To outline the step-by-step process for patent application

Answer: (B)

The phrase "means for" in patent claims is typically used to describe the functional aspects of a device or method. This phrasing allows for a focus on what the component does rather than what it is made from or how it is structured. It reflects a means-plus-function claim language that complies with the statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, which permits inventors to define an element of their invention in terms of its function rather than its physical structure. Using "means for" encourages broader interpretations by allowing different embodiments that perform the same function under the claim's scope. This strategically enhances the likelihood of the patent covering various designs that achieve the same result, thus offering broader protection to the inventor's invention. In contrast, options that suggest specifying exact materials, detailing the inventor's contributions, or outlining the application process do not align with the primary purpose of "means for" in claims, which is about defining functionality in a patent context. Instead, they focus on details unrelated to the functional language and scope intended by the phrasing "means for."

The phrase "means for" in patent claims is typically used to describe the functional aspects of a device or method. This phrasing allows for a focus on what the component does rather than what it is made from or how it is structured. It reflects a means-plus-function claim language that complies with the statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, which permits inventors to define an element of their invention in terms of its function rather than its physical structure.

Using "means for" encourages broader interpretations by allowing different embodiments that perform the same function under the claim's scope. This strategically enhances the likelihood of the patent covering various designs that achieve the same result, thus offering broader protection to the inventor's invention.

In contrast, options that suggest specifying exact materials, detailing the inventor's contributions, or outlining the application process do not align with the primary purpose of "means for" in claims, which is about defining functionality in a patent context. Instead, they focus on details unrelated to the functional language and scope intended by the phrasing "means for."