IN RE VARMA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate an otherwise clear relationship among claim elements

by | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate a relationship among claim elements that is otherwise made clear by context. Here, for example, the claimed “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments” was found to require that a...

EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS LLC v. SILVER SPRING NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The ordinary meaning of a claim term cannot be completely untethered to the context of the invention

by | Feb 29, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

The ordinary meaning of a claim term cannot be completely untethered to the context of the invention. Here, for example, the claim terms “portable” and “mobile” were found to not cover everything utility meters attached to the exterior walls of buildings, even though...

PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Broadest dictionary definition does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard

by | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest dictionary definition of a claim term does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Here, for example, the PTO’s asserted definition of a continuity member positioned to “reside around” a coaxial cable as requiring nothing...

PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Inconsistent examples in the specification facilitate invalidity at the PTO without additional protection

by | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Minor but inconsistent examples in the specification may facilitate invalidity by broadening claim interpretation at the PTO so as to bring in additional prior art without necessarily broadening the scope of patent protection. Here, for example, although the...

DRIESSEN v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – The term “storing” requires not only holding an object but also putting it into storage in the first place

by | Feb 10, 2016 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Unless dictated otherwise by context, the term “storing” requires not only holding an object but also putting it into storage in the first place. Here, for example, means for “storing” a record on or in a physical medium was found to require a structure for not only...

TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIV. v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Inconsistent terminology may render claims indefinite when the claims rely on a minority interpretation

by | Feb 2, 2016 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Inconsistent terminology in the specification may render claims indefinite when the claims rely on a minority interpretation. Here, for example, because the claimed “byte sequence feature” is predominantly described in the specification as referring to the machine...