by Steve Driskill | Jan 16, 2013 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
A rather fact specific inquiry here, but the basic lesson seems to be that a claim should not be interpreted so as to import requirements for the greater context when the claim itself is more specifically directed to a particular aspect. Background / Facts: The patent...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 17, 2012 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
There is a difference between impermissibly importing the specification’s limitations or preferred embodiments into the claims and simply giving meaning to the claim terms as they are used throughout the specification. In this case, while it is true that there was...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 13, 2012 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Another reminder to avoid characterizing the “invention” itself, as opposed to certain “embodiments” of the invention. The courts have repeatedly warned against confining claims to a particular embodiment and the need to avoid importing limitations from the...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 22, 2012 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Despite the broad language cautioning against importing language into the claims based on consistent or even exclusive use in the disclosed examples, it remains good practice to include at least two examples for claim terms recited more broadly. The courts seem only...
