CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Claim differentiation applies on a limitation-by-limitation basis

by Steve Driskill | Nov 17, 2015 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

Claim differentiation applies on a limitation-by-limitation basis and is not vitiated by the inclusion of additional limitations in the differentiating claim. Here, for example, a dependent claim specifying that a “web browser process” is capable of “direct” access to...

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Selection of an “optimal” element is not necessarily limited to the single best such element

by Steve Driskill | Nov 16, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

While context dependent, selection of an “optimal” element is not necessarily limited to the single best such element. Here, for example, selection of “an optimal server” was found to include several potentially optimal servers from which content may be retrieved...

ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The location term “end” is limited to the region at or near where a corresponding structure ceases to exist

by Steve Driskill | Nov 12, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

The location term “end” is generally limited to the region at or near where a corresponding structure ceases to exist. Here, for example, while the claim term “proximate end” was found to encompass some offset from the absolute end of a corresponding shipping...

IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Negative claim limitations will be interpreted just as broadly as positive claim limitations

by Steve Driskill | Nov 10, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Negative claim limitations will be interpreted just as broadly as positive claim limitations, which may significantly narrow the claim scope. Here, for example, method steps required to be performed “without the use of a vision guidance system” were found to exclude a...

IN RE TAYLOR (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A claimed correlation between a claim feature and a performance property does not carry patentable weight

by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2015 | [sub] intended use, Claim Interpretation

A limitation that only recites a correlation between a claim feature and a performance property does not carry any patentable weight. Here, for example, a “weight concentration ratio” claimed as being selected to correlate with how damaging the resulting solution is...

ATLAS IP, LLC v. MEDTRONIC, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Imprecisions about plurals and conjunctions found in the claim language should be resolved by context

by Steve Driskill | Oct 29, 2015 | [sub] claim context, [sub] grammar, Claim Interpretation

Imprecisions about plurals and conjunctions found in the claim language should be resolved by context. Here, for example, a hub / remote device communication cycle having “intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames” was found to...