# Aristocrat Technologies v. Int'l Game Tech. > When "Appropriate Programming" Isn't Appropriate At All **By Paul Roberts** | 🔍 Critical Spotlight 📊 **2,400 words** | ⏱️ **10 min read** #Case_Brief #35_USC_112f #Critical_Spotlight #Software_Patents #Patent_Law January 2, 2026 --- # Section 112, ¶ 6 has a price: disclose actual structure for your means-plus-function claims. 'Appropriate programming' isn't structure. It's a placeholder Aristocrat owned a patent for an electronic slot machine that let players pick their own winning combinations. Think of it like customizable pay lines—instead of the casino deciding which symbol arrangements win, you get to define them yourself. Pretty clever for a slot machine. They sued IGT for infringement. But the district court never got to infringement because it held every single claim invalid for indefiniteness under § 112. The reason? The patent's "game control means" didn't point to any actual structure in the specification. The Federal Circuit affirmed. ## The Statute Says What It Says Section 112, ¶ 6 lets you claim in functional terms—"means for doing X"—but there's a price. Translation: You must disclose the actual structure that performs the function. You can't just wave your hands and say "a computer does it." Here's what Aristocrat's patent disclosed as the structure for its "game control means": > "any standard microprocessor base [sic] gaming machine [with] appropriate programming" That's it. That's the whole thing. Translation: "Use a computer and program it to do the thing." Which is like saying the structure for "means for transportation" is "a vehicle with appropriate operation." It tells you nothing. ## Why This Matters for Software Patents The Federal Circuit has been crystal clear about this since *WMS Gaming* back in 1999: When your means-plus-function claim points to software, disclosing "a general purpose computer" isn't disclosing structure at all. Here's why. A general purpose computer can do anything—stream Netflix, mine Bitcoin, run your slot machine, whatever. It's the algorithm—the specific step-by-step instructions—that transforms a generic processor into your particular invention. As the court put it, the computer "becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software." So for software inventions, the disclosed structure isn't "a computer." It's "the algorithm disclosed in the specification." No algorithm disclosed? No structure. No structure? Invalid claim. ## Aristocrat's Arguments Were a Sleight of Hand Aristocrat tried three moves to save its patent. None of them worked. **First**, Aristocrat pointed to language in the claim itself describing when to pay a prize and how to calculate winning combinations. The court's response: That's just describing the function again, not how the computer performs it. The mathematical equation describing the *result* isn't an algorithm describing the *process*. It's like claiming "means for making coffee" and pointing to "coffee comes out" as your structural disclosure. Describing what happens doesn't tell anyone how you made it happen. **Second**, Aristocrat argued that Figures 1-4 and Tables 1-3 disclosed the algorithm through examples. Wrong again. Those figures show sample player selections and the resulting winning combinations. They're examples of outcomes, not instructions for how to get there. The court had no patience for this: "The figures, tables, and related discussion, however, are not algorithms. They are simply examples of the results of the operation of an unspecified algorithm." **Third**—and here's where it gets interesting—Aristocrat argued that skilled artisans could build the device from the disclosure, so enablement was satisfied. The court shut this down hard: You're confusing enablement under § 112, ¶ 1 with the structure requirement under § 112, ¶ 6. Enablement asks: Can someone make and use your invention? Section 112, ¶ 6 asks: What specific structure performs the claimed function? These are different questions. Just because a programmer could write code to implement your slot machine doesn't mean you've disclosed any particular algorithm. And without disclosing the algorithm, your means-plus-function claim covers *every possible way* of implementing the function. That's pure functional claiming—exactly what § 112, ¶ 6 was designed to prevent. ## The Courtroom Moment That Said Everything At oral argument, a judge asked Aristocrat's lawyer: Would any microprocessor infringe claim 1 if it performed these functions, regardless of how it was programmed? Aristocrat's answer: Yes. That response revealed the game. Aristocrat wanted functional claiming as long as a computer did the work. Any computer. Programmed any way. Just perform the function. The Federal Circuit flatly rejected this position: "This court's cases flatly reject that position." ## What About *Dossel*? Aristocrat tried to invoke *In re Dossel*, where the Federal Circuit upheld a means-plus-function claim that said "known algorithms can be used." But the court explained why *Dossel* actually proves the opposite point. The *Dossel* application didn't just say "use an algorithm." It provided the precise equations describing the relationship between magnetic flux density and current density, explained the matrix form, and detailed every component. The only thing left to "known algorithms" were basic mathematical techniques for solving those specific equations. Translation: *Dossel* disclosed everything except the rote computation steps. Aristocrat disclosed nothing except "program it somehow." ## The Bottom Line You can't claim "means for [function]" and then point to "a computer with appropriate programming" as your structure. Not for software patents. Not under § 112, ¶ 6. You need to disclose the algorithm. Not source code necessarily—but the step-by-step process that transforms a general purpose computer into your specific invention. Aristocrat didn't do that. The district court correctly held the claims invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed. And here's what this means for patent prosecutors: If you're drafting means-plus-function claims for software inventions, describe your algorithm's logic. Show the inputs, the processing steps, the decision trees, the outputs. Don't just say "appropriate programming"—that's not programming at all, that's wishful thinking. --- **Key Takeaway**: "Appropriate programming" is a placeholder, not a structure. For software means-plus-function claims, disclose the actual algorithm or lose your claims to indefiniteness. **Citation**: Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).