Maurice Mitchell figured that Intel's Pentium processors were infringing. Claim 1, a means-plus-function claim, was the independent claim asserted.

Intel argued that the claim wasn't enabled, a argument that rarely gets traction in court. But Intel's hired gun, Robert Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest, hammered '154: "It is a whole chip, ..., with thousands and thousands of transistors. They are saying 'go look at this and somewhere in it you can find a tri-state driver and that is our structure.'"

Judge Davis dryly noted in his summary judgment opinion invalidating the patent, citing four limitations that the plaintiff had failed to show corresponding structures for the claimed functions, if one "employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language." If not, the applicant "has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention."