CUTSFORTH, INC. v. MOTIVEPOWER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes sub-components

by Steve Driskill | Apr 6, 2016 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes the relationship between simple sub-components and the larger component of which they are a part. Here, for example, a brush catch in the prior art that was part of a beam component was found to be patentably distinct from...

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 Steve Driskill | 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...

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...

IN RE BOOKSTAFF (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The plain meaning of “Indicative” is to “serve to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index”

by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Absent a different usage made clear by the specification, the term “indicative” is a common word with a well-known meaning of “serving to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index.” Here, for example, “data that is indicative of a gratuity to be charged” in a financial...

ENZO BIOCHEM INC. v. APPLERA CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The term “component” requires that other components be part of the larger system

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

The term “component” requires that other components be part of the larger system. Here, for example, a compound claimed as “represent[ing] at least one component of a signalling moiety” was found to exclude single-entity moiety arrangements. “[T]he term ‘component’ in...