IN RE 55 BRAKE LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Specifically reciting a member of a claimed “plurality” reduces the number of other members of the plurality

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...

TMI PRODUCTS INC v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term

by Steve Driskill | Apr 2, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term. Here, for example, an entertainment system housing structured to permit “selective” access to a user was found to exclude embodiments that permitted constant access (e.g., an...

FENF, LLC v. SMARTTHINGZ, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Differentiation among claims can prevent restrictions on one claim term from being applied to other terms

by Steve Driskill | Feb 6, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Differentiation among the claims can serve to counter an inference that restrictions on one claim term should be applied to other claim terms. Here, for example, “posts” and “separators” were found to be sufficiently distinct elements based on their inclusion in...

WALKER DIGITAL, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Separate claim terms will be generally construed as separate limitations

by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Separate claim terms will be generally construed as separate limitations. Here, for example, an “auction” for the sale of one “item” was found to still encompass multi-sale auctions because the claims did not explicitly equate the two terms as being synonymous....

SSL SERVICES, LLC v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Spatial or temporal proximity terms like “direct” may require a consistent interpretation of other limitations

by Steve Driskill | Oct 14, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Spatial or temporal proximity terms like “direct” may require not only a specific relationship between corresponding claim limitations, but also an interpretation of other limitations that facilitates the relationship. Here, for example, transmitting files “directly”...

MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Separately claimed sub-limitation may be interpreted as independent of an otherwise base limitation

by Steve Driskill | Aug 22, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

An express or implied order of operations may be used to infer that the operations constitute separate steps that must be completed in sequence, otherwise one of the steps would be subsumed by another and superfluous. For example, establishing a connection and...