by Steve Driskill | Apr 27, 2015 | [sub] ranges, Indefiniteness
Claim language employing terms of degree is not indefinite when its bounds can be inferred from inherent parameters related to proper operation. Here, for example, a “spaced relationship” between two electrodes was found to be sufficiently definite because the spacing...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 24, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Claims shall not be construed so as to read any recited term out of the patent. Here, for example, actions occurring “when” a caller is “placed on hold” were found to be limited to the moment the caller is placed on hold, rather than at any point during the period the...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 24, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Use of the term “preferred” when describing example embodiments implies that alternatives are contemplated. Here, for example, the mention in the specification of a “preferred” receive-only manner of communication was found to imply the invention’s ability to operate...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 17, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
Dictionary definitions provide an adequate starting point when the specification does not recite a claim term. Here, for example, the claim term “channel” was found to be adequately characterized by its dictionary definition of “a long gutter, groove, or furrow”...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 16, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
It is important to establish the “criticality” of a claimed range to the claimed invention in order to avoid anticipation by a prior art reference disclosing a broader, overlapping range. Here, for example, a lubricant claimed in the amount of 0.05 to 0.5% by weight...
