by Steve Driskill | Sep 3, 2013 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
If there is doubt as to whether a particular claim term is an accurate descriptor for the limitation at issue, it is probably best to use a more generic or even functional term, rather than a scientific term with an accepted meaning that may not be accurate. A court...
by Steve Driskill | May 20, 2013 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
The same claim term (e.g., “substantially”) can have different constructions depending upon the context of how the term is used within the claims and specification. Background / Facts: This case concerns the processes used to make various piperidine derivatives, which...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 30, 2012 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
The claims and specification should be read “in a manner that renders the patent internally consistent,” even when doing so would impart a different meaning than the ordinary and customary meaning in the art. While that worked out well for the patentee in this...
