ACME SCALE COMPANY, INC. v. LTS SCALE COMPANY, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the subspecies disclosed in the specification

by Steve Driskill | Jun 10, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO must be consistent with the subspecies of the element at issue as disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a table with rollers attached thereto was found to fall outside of the claimed...

KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Lack of word-for-word alignment of specification and claims does not require use of extrinsic evidence

by Steve Driskill | Jun 10, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

Word-for-word alignment of the specification with the claim language is unnecessary for the appropriate meaning of a claim term to be ascertained from the intrinsic record. Here, for example, although the term “sealed” tank was added to the claims during prosecution...

VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – All words of a claim term must be given meaning

by Steve Driskill | Jun 9, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

All words of a claim term must be given meaning. Here, for example, the term “display format” referring to a video signal was found to require that the video signal be “ready for use” by a conventional external monitor in order to give meaning to the word “display” as...

IN RE GEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A specification’s mere assertion of synergistic effect is insufficient to establish unexpected results

by Steve Driskill | Jun 8, 2015 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness

A specification’s assertion of a possible synergistic effect, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to support a finding of unexpected results and overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the specification’s assertion that “[i]t is...

GLOBAL TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES v. MORGAN (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Physical space constraints are not dispositive of how a patentee is required to mark its commercial article

by Steve Driskill | Jun 4, 2015 | [sub] marking, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Physical space constraints are not dispositive of whether a patentee is required to mark its commercial article rather than its packaging. Here, for example, a traffic control system was found to be adequately marked by its packaging rather than its components even...