by Steve Driskill | Apr 6, 2016 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes the relationship between simple sub-components and the larger component of which they are a part. Here, for example, a brush catch in the prior art that was part of a beam component was found to be patentably distinct from...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 5, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference rather than an object as a whole. Here, for example, a “perpendicular” orientation of a substantially planar mounting plate relative to a drive-wheel axis was found to require...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 4, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely. Here, for example, a “static” display that was updated only manually was found to be not infringed by an automatically updating display even though the updating...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 1, 2016 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings. Here, for example, the claimed “data channel” added during prosecution was found to be distinct from the specification’s discussion of “data feeds” because the term “data channel” was not used in the...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 24, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A problem to be solved that forms the basis of a reason to combine the prior art must be known in the art or derived directly from the prior art to avoid the impropriety of hindsight bias. Here, for example, the problem of solubility to be solved by the proposed...
