by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2014 | [sub] importing limitations, [sub] invocation, Claim Interpretation, Means Plus Function
(1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” may be used in the specification to indicate that a particular feature is not required. Here, for example, the disclosure of an “exemplary” display that “preferably” depicts a classroom map was found to...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 29, 2014 | [sub] obviousness-type, [sub] terminal disclaimer, Double Patenting, PTO Procedure
A terminal disclaimer that purports to attach to all child applications will be honored. Here, for example, a terminal disclaimer in a parent application stating that it attaches to “any application which is entitled to the filing date of this application under 35...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 20, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
A stated purpose of the invention may be used to construe otherwise ambiguous claim language. Here, for example, an orthodontic device “support surface” was interpreted as being required to provide a particular type of support (during movement of a slide) in order to...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 17, 2014 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
A claim term used in exactly the same way as in conventional systems will be interpreted to require all the standard features thereof. Here, for example, the claimed “virtual machine” was interpreted as requiring the typical limitation of conventional “virtual...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 14, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Spatial or temporal proximity terms like “direct” may require not only a specific relationship between corresponding claim limitations, but also an interpretation of other limitations that facilitates the relationship. Here, for example, transmitting files “directly”...
