by Steve Driskill | Apr 24, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Use of the term “preferred” when describing example embodiments implies that alternatives are contemplated. Here, for example, the mention in the specification of a “preferred” receive-only manner of communication was found to imply the invention’s ability to operate...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 17, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
Dictionary definitions provide an adequate starting point when the specification does not recite a claim term. Here, for example, the claim term “channel” was found to be adequately characterized by its dictionary definition of “a long gutter, groove, or furrow”...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 16, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
It is important to establish the “criticality” of a claimed range to the claimed invention in order to avoid anticipation by a prior art reference disclosing a broader, overlapping range. Here, for example, a lubricant claimed in the amount of 0.05 to 0.5% by weight...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 13, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Specifically reciting a member of a claimed “plurality” reduces the number of other members of the plurality that need to be present to meet the claim limitation. Here, for example, reciting that “one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor” was found...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 3, 2015 | [sub] grammar, Claim Interpretation
Proper grammar is essential in both claim drafting and other statements that may be used to construe the claims, such as arguments made during prosecution. Here, for example, the patentee argued during prosecution that “disparate” databases referred to an “absence of...
