Particularly in situations where a given claim term does not have a commonly accepted plain meaning in the art to which it pertains, consistent use of the term in the written description may be sufficient to inform its meaning without improperly importing limitations into the claims.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here disclose systems and methods for correcting noisy telecommunication signals by replacing distorted sections of the signal with undistorted portions. The claims at issue recite a receiver that receives an analog signal, digitizes that signal, and “reconstructs” the signal to remove distortion.
Issue(s): Whether the claim term “reconstruction” refers more specifically to replacing a distorted portion of the signal with undistorted ones rather than encompassing any technique for “reducing errors in communication signals.”
Holding(s): Yes. “The specification consistently uses reconstruction to mean replacing the distorted portion of the input waveform. The written description of the [] patent repeatedly describes reconstruction as being accomplished by replacing distorted portions of the waveform with undistorted ones.” Among several examples, the court noted the specification’s statement that “it would be advantageous to analyze both the positive and negative halves of an rf signal cycle and determine which half is the ‘best’ half, and then extract the useful signal from the ‘best’ half.”