by Steve Driskill | Jan 16, 2013 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
A broad term in the claims cannot “rewrite the patent.” Make sure your specification adequately supports your broader terms and avoid characterizing the “invention” as something more specific. Background / Facts: The patent here provides a “dynamically generated,...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 4, 2013 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
“Our cases instruct that when a patent describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” Background / Facts: The patent here is directed to “a spring-actuated desktop stapler that … relates to an...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 9, 2012 | [sub] common terms, [sub] specification, Claim Interpretation, Estoppel / Disclaimer
(1) The general rule is that the use of the indefinite articles “a” or “an” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising” means “one or more,” unless “the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history...
