by Steve Driskill | Feb 21, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
While a fairly fact-specific inquiry, in general, an ancillary and otherwise generic component will not by itself render a claim for the combination non-obvious. Dependent claims directed to such components should specifically recite how they are integrated with the...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 10, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
In general, “an element” that is later referenced as “the element” with corresponding antecedent basis must be the same element. Thus, as here, “a change” that is identified and later referenced as “the change” being communicated requires that the same “change” being...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 10, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
When hardware is claimed in terms of functional limitations, and the hardware cannot meet these limitations in the absence of enabling software, “the claims are properly construed as claiming an apparatus comprising a combination of hardware and software capable of...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 29, 2013 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
While somewhat context specific, the most natural reading of “at least two elements” followed by reference to “the elements” implies that the later reference refers to all of the earlier elements, not a subset thereof. Background / Facts: The patent on appeal from...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 11, 2012 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Take care to provide unambiguous antecedent basis in your claims when referring to “each” of a plurality of elements. Although departing from standard claim drafting practice (and common sense), the court found enough wiggle room here to hold that “each heuristic...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 31, 2012 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
I found the most interesting discussion to be about the interpretation of definite and indefinite articles. The court explained that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’ … The exceptions to this rule are...
