## Facts

- Noah Systems, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 5,875,435, directed to an automated financial accounting system enabling transmission of financial transaction information between entities’ computers.
- The asserted system claims required, among other components, a financial accounting computer, financial transaction computers, communications means, and an “access means.”
- Noah alleged Intuit’s Quicken and QuickBooks products infringed multiple system claims (claims 12–17, 29–38, and 40–56), all of which included the “access means” limitation.
- The parties agreed “access means” is a means-plus-function limitation performed by a processor.
- The district court construed “access means” under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and held the claims indefinite because the specification did not disclose corresponding structure for the computer-implemented function (an algorithm), then granted summary judgment of invalidity for Intuit.
- Noah appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “access means” limitation is indefinite because the specification fails to disclose an algorithm corresponding to the recited computer-implemented functions required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
2. Whether Noah waived its indefiniteness arguments on appeal by failing to raise certain points in the district court.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid as indefinite.
- The court held the “access means” limitation is indefinite because the specification does not disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed functions when the structure is a processor/computer.
- The court rejected the argument that functional descriptions, high-level architecture, or a skilled artisan’s knowledge could supply the missing algorithm.
- The court held Noah did not waive the indefiniteness arguments because it raised the same indefiniteness contentions during claim construction in the district court.

## Legal Principles

- For a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the claim is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents.
- When the claimed function is implemented by a general-purpose computer or processor, the “corresponding structure” must include a disclosed algorithm that performs the recited function; identifying a computer or generic software is insufficient.
- A specification that states desired results or functional outcomes, without describing an algorithmic procedure for the computer to perform the function, fails to provide corresponding structure and renders the limitation indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2.
- Indefiniteness arguments are not waived on appeal where the substance of those arguments was presented to the district court during claim construction.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity because the patent’s computer-implemented “access means” was a means-plus-function limitation lacking a disclosed algorithm, making the claim scope uncertain and the asserted claims indefinite, and it further held Noah preserved its indefiniteness challenge for appeal.


Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)