Panel: Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Moore, with Judge Moore writing the opinion You should read this case if: you have a claim term with functional language that may be subject to means-plus-function interpretation Everyone knows patents must end with claims that “particularly point out and distinctly” identify the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). But some inventions don’t lend themselves to succinct delineation in the claims. So Congress provided an alternative—rather than identify in the claims an exact structure or step that is an element of the invention, patentees can express the element as “a means or step for performing a specified function.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). When they do, the claim will be “construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”