IN RE SHANEOUR (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The terms “associated with” and “related to” are not limited to a direct one-to-one correspondence

by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

The terms “associated with” and “related to” on their face are not limited to a direct one-to-one correspondence. Here, for example, a sensor claimed as being “associated with” an individual light fixture and producing a signal “related to” the light level of that...

IN RE KHAYRALLAH (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation of “sub-signal” requires only slight differences between signal versions

by Steve Driskill | Dec 9, 2014 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Absent a narrowing definition in the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sub-signal” requires only slight differences between signal versions. Here, for example, given a broad description in the specification, the claimed “sub-signal” was...

FERRING B.V. v. APOTEX INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – The term “about” should be given its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately”

by Steve Driskill | Aug 22, 2014 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

The term “about” should be given its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately” unless the patentee clearly redefines “about” in the specification. No more specific of an interpretation (e.g., a particular numerical range) is warranted by the use of this term...

H-W TECHNOLOGY, L.C. v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – “User” does not encompass inanimate objects

by Steve Driskill | Jul 11, 2014 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Unless the specification explicitly states otherwise, a “user” will most likely be limited to human consumers and not encompass inanimate objects (e.g., smartphone apps performing background operations). Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed...

AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. YAHOO! INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Intermediary element cutting off “initiation” of a claimed operation

by Steve Driskill | Jun 20, 2014 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

The chain of causation required for “initiating” a given operation may be cut off by an intermediary element more closely associated with the “initiation” even if the preceding element begins the process which ultimately results in that operation. Background / Facts:...

IN RE GIANNELLI (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Physical capability as an obviousness rational for an element “adapted to” perform a specific function

by Steve Driskill | Jan 13, 2014 | [sub] common terms, [sub] motivation, Claim Interpretation, Obviousness

An element that is “adapted to” perform a particular function in the sense of being specially “designed or constructed” for that purpose (as made clear by the specification) is not anticipated or rendered obvious by a structure specifically designed or constructed for...