Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context in which it is described. Here, for example, the specification stated that the claimed navigational way points “may be” used as intermediate points on the route, which the court took to mean that there were other uses and that way points were therefore not limited to intermediate points alone (but also included the destination, as in the accused device). It may therefore be best to describe various features in the specification with similar permissive language (e.g., “may be”) as opposed to more restrictive language (e.g., “is”) as a general principle.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to improving vehicle navigation systems through more efficient distribution of navigation functions between a remote dispatch and a mobile unit located in the vehicle. In this regard, the claims recite receiving destination information specifying a plurality of “way points.” The district court determined that the patentee used the term “way point(s)” only in the context of determining whether a vehicle is out of route and for more accurate calculations of actual road distance. The district court thus construed “way point(s)” as “intermediate point(s) on the way to the final destination (and not the final destination itself).”
Issue(s): Whether the district court erred in excluding final destinations from its construction of “way point(s).”
Holding(s): Yes. “The claims use the term ‘way point(s)’ in a broad manner. The written description similarly uses the term in a broad manner. First, the written description distinguishes between ‘way point(s)’ and ‘intermediate way points.’ … It provides that ‘way points may be used as intermediate points between the position of [the] vehicle [] and the destination.’ [] This permissive language indicates that ‘way point(s)’ may be more than just intermediate points along the route.”