WORLD CLASS TECHNOLOGY CORP v. ORMCO CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Stated purpose of the invention may be used to construe ambiguous claim language

by Steve Driskill | Oct 20, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

A stated purpose of the invention may be used to construe otherwise ambiguous claim language. Here, for example, an orthodontic device “support surface” was interpreted as being required to provide a particular type of support (during movement of a slide) in order to...

FACEBOOK, INC. v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Descriptions of example features of claim language is not sufficient for lexicography or disavowal

by Steve Driskill | Sep 11, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

In order to limit the otherwise plain meaning of the language of the claims, statements in the specification must particularly describe the language at issue. Merely describing related or exemplary features (e.g., “location information” in contrast to the claimed...

ALBECKER v. CONTOUR PRODUCTS, INC. (FL) (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Use of disjunctive “or” in describing set of features may imply that the features are alternatives

by Steve Driskill | Aug 7, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Use of a disjunctive “or” in describing a set of features may be used to infer that the features are alternatives to one another. Although this may not be sufficient to establish that such alternatives are mutually exclusive in a given embodiment, it may imply that...

AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Universal and advantageous embodiment features may be read Into related claim terms

by Steve Driskill | Aug 1, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Although limitations from the specification should not ordinarily be imported into the claims, “the embodiments define the outer limits of the claim term.” Thus, when a certain feature is present in all the embodiments and touted as advantageous, it may be reasonably...

X2Y ATTENUATORS, LLC v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Labeling certain features as “essential” or “universal” to all embodiments constitutes disavowal

by Steve Driskill | Jul 7, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

A statement directly or indirectly incorporated into the specification that the presence of a particular feature is “universal to all the embodiments” or is “an essential element among all embodiments or connotations of the invention” constitutes a clear and...

LOCHNER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. VIZIO, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Open-ended claim terms may be limited by specification

by Steve Driskill | Jun 27, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Use of open-ended terms such as “including” does not “trump[] consideration of the specification and prosecution history and displace application of standard claim construction principles.” To the contrary, “it is well-established that claim terms must be construed in...