Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification. Here, for example, the claimed “two insulated chambers” were found to require no more than mere electrical insulation based on the patent’s overall focus on electrical rather than physical isolation. It may therefore be best to clarify any potentially ambiguous claim language.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to a high voltage transformer consisting of positive and negative voltage elements arranged into two separate groups that are separated by a single insulating barrier. In this regard, the claims recite positive voltage elements that are separated from the negative voltage elements by solid insulating means in “two insulated chambers.”
Issue(s): Whether the proper construction of the phrase “two insulated chambers” requires more than mere electrical insulation, such that the two insulated chambers cannot “open directly into one another,” cannot have “oil [that] is able to flow freely throughout the entire housing,” and require a “physical barrier between portions of the two regions.”
Holding(s): No. While recognizing that “[t]he claims of the [] patent are no model of clarity,” the court ultimately found that, “[o]n the record before us, the claim term ‘two insulated chambers’ simply refers to electrically insulated chambers. The Background of the Invention explains that the difficulty with prior art transformers was in ‘achieving the electrical insulation between the various elements.’ [] The Description of the Invention explains that one benefit of the invention is reducing ‘the number of … electrical insulation parts.’ [] The patent’s focus on electrical insulation reflects the fact that the invention involves placing elements of similar electrical voltage in close proximity to reduce ‘the insulator filling.’”