TEASHOT LLC v. GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTER (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Silence with regard to a certain aspect of the invention does not depart from consistent teachings elsewhere

by | Jan 5, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Silence in a particular example with regard to a certain aspect of the invention cannot be used to depart from consistent teachings about that aspect elsewhere in the specification. Here, for example, a figure that did not show any details of container entry or exit...

FLEMING v. ESCORT INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Marketplace developments prompting reassessment of issued claims qualifies as “error” sufficient for reissue

by | Dec 24, 2014 | [sub] reissue, PTO Procedure

Although a “now-regretted choice” does not meet the “error” precondition for obtaining reissue under 35 U.S.C. § 251, marketplace developments that prompt a patentee to reassess their issued claims is a “classic reason that qualifies as error” for the purposes of...

CONTENT EXTRACTION v. WELLS FARGO BANK (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Processing information from specific hardware beyond a generic computer may still be an abstract idea

by | Dec 23, 2014 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

Processing information from specific hardware beyond a generic computer is still not sufficient to escape the realm of abstract ideas for the purposes of establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, claims directed to an ATM...

STRYKER CORPORATION v. ZIMMER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claim differentiation may serve to enforce a broader meaning than the disclosed embodiments

by | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

The doctrine of claim differentiation may serve to enforce a broader meaning of certain claim limitations than those embodiments specifically disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a “handpiece” design consistently described in the specification as “having...

DATATERN, INC. v. EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Claim differentiation may be used to demonstrate drafting intent regarding included and omitted features

by | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

Claim differentiation may be used to demonstrate drafting intent with regard to included and omitted features. Here, for example, the claimed operation of “creating” an object instance was found to require only instantiating that object rather than also generating the...