by Steve Driskill | Nov 25, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Absent clear redefinition or disavowal, the plain meaning of a claim limitation will be controlling over other descriptions in the specification when the plain meaning is unambiguous. Here, for example, a “query” concerning the online status of other network devices...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 17, 2015 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
Claim differentiation applies on a limitation-by-limitation basis and is not vitiated by the inclusion of additional limitations in the differentiating claim. Here, for example, a dependent claim specifying that a “web browser process” is capable of “direct” access to...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 12, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The location term “end” is generally limited to the region at or near where a corresponding structure ceases to exist. Here, for example, while the claim term “proximate end” was found to encompass some offset from the absolute end of a corresponding shipping...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 10, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Negative claim limitations will be interpreted just as broadly as positive claim limitations, which may significantly narrow the claim scope. Here, for example, method steps required to be performed “without the use of a vision guidance system” were found to exclude a...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2015 | [sub] intended use, Claim Interpretation
A limitation that only recites a correlation between a claim feature and a performance property does not carry any patentable weight. Here, for example, a “weight concentration ratio” claimed as being selected to correlate with how damaging the resulting solution is...
