Legal Definitions - means-combination claim

A means-combination claim (more commonly referred to as a "means-plus-function claim" in U.S. patent law) is a specific type of statement within a patent application that describes an element of an invention by its *function* rather than its precise physical *structure*. Instead of detailing exactly what a component is made of or how it is physically constructed, this claim language defines the component by stating what it *does* or its *purpose*, typically using the phrase "means for" followed by the function.

The key characteristic of a means-combination claim is that its legal scope is tied directly to the patent application's detailed description (known as the "specification"). It is interpreted to cover only the specific structure, material, or act disclosed in the specification that performs the recited function, along with any equivalent structures, materials, or acts. This approach offers inventors some flexibility in claiming their invention without being overly restricted to every minor structural detail, while still requiring them to clearly explain *how* the function is achieved.

• Example 1: Robotic Vacuum Cleaner

  Imagine an inventor patents a new robotic vacuum cleaner. Instead of claiming "a rotating brush assembly," the patent might include an element described as "a means for agitating debris from a surface."

  How it illustrates the term: This claim describes the cleaning component by its function ("agitating debris") rather than its specific structural form (a brush, a beater bar, etc.). For this claim to be valid, the patent application's detailed description would need to clearly illustrate at least one specific structure that performs this debris-agitating function, such as a rotating brush. The claim would then cover that disclosed rotating brush and any other equivalent structures that perform the same debris-agitating function.

• Example 2: Smart Irrigation System

  Consider a company developing a smart irrigation system that waters plants based on soil moisture levels. Within the patent claim, instead of specifying "a capacitive soil moisture sensor," the claim might state "a means for determining soil hydration."

  How it illustrates the term: Here, the claim defines the sensing part of the system by what it *accomplishes* (determining soil hydration) rather than its exact physical component (a capacitive sensor, a resistive sensor, etc.). The patent specification would be required to describe a particular type of sensor (e.g., a capacitive soil moisture sensor) that performs this function. The claim would then cover that specific disclosed sensor and any other equivalent components capable of determining soil hydration.

• Example 3: Online Secure Transaction System

  A software company patents a novel system for securely processing online payments. Within a claim describing the overall transaction process, one step might be "a means for authenticating user credentials."

  How it illustrates the term: This element describes a functional step ("authenticating user credentials") rather than a specific algorithm, protocol, or code structure (e.g., two-factor authentication, password hashing). The patent specification would need to disclose a specific method or algorithm (like a particular encryption standard or a multi-factor authentication protocol) that performs this user authentication function. The claim would then cover that specific disclosed method/algorithm and any equivalent methods/algorithms that achieve the same credential authentication function.