SUMMIT 6, LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – An element described as “being provided” in a particular way may not require a separate method step

by Steve Driskill | Sep 21, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A claim limitation describing a previously recited element as “being provided” in a particular way may be interpreted as a characteristic of that element rather than a separate method step. Here, for example, a “pre-processing” step at a client device in accordance...

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Previous judicial interpretation of a claim term should be treated as persuasive precedent by PTO

by Steve Driskill | Aug 12, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Where the principal argument to the PTO about the proper interpretation of a claim term is consistent with a previous judicial interpretation, the PTO is obligated to acknowledge that interpretation and assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable...

SOCIEDAD ESPANOLA v. BLUE RIDGE X-RAY COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification

by Steve Driskill | Jul 31, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

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...

CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over broader extrinsic evidence

by Steve Driskill | Jun 29, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over extrinsic evidence even when that evidence points to a broader understanding of the plain meaning of the term in the art. Here, for example, an “active” waveguide coupler was found to be clearly...

TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A portion of a claim preamble being a limitation does not require the entire preamble to be a limitation

by Steve Driskill | Jun 19, 2015 | [sub] preamble, Claim Interpretation

The fact that a portion of a claim preamble may be interpreted as a constituting a limitation does not require that the entire preamble constitute a limitation. Here, for example, the preamble “method for [a] generating and updating data for use in [b] a destination...

CEPHALON, INC. v. ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A definition need only be widely rather than universally accepted to form the basis for claim construction

by Steve Driskill | Jun 17, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

A definition need only be widely accepted rather than universally accepted to form a proper basis for claim construction. Here, for example, although the patentee noted that the definition of the claimed “nanoparticles” and “microparticles” as being between 1 to 1000...