tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post2952056918127516168..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: CAFC Creates Potential Conflict in De Nove Review of MPF ClaimsTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-4108476244993633922008-04-04T11:01:00.000-05:002008-04-04T11:01:00.000-05:00I disagree with you. If you look at the language ...I disagree with you. If you look at the language of the Chiuminatta case that you cited, it says that the determination of the FUNCTION is a question of law. It doesn't say that determination of the structure for performing the function is a question of law. Further, something can be a question of law based on underlying factual determinations. When you're determining whether appropriate structure was disclosed to support a means plus function term, you need to look at the disclosed structure from the standpoint of an ordinary artisan. Thus, factual determinations regarding the skill in the art at the time of the invention, how an ordinary artisan would have perceived the disclosed structure, etc., are necessary. Thus, I don't find this decision inconsistent with past case law regarding MPF determinations being questions of law, and I believe they made it nonprecedential for other reasons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com