FACEBOOK, INC. v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Descriptions of example features of claim language is not sufficient for lexicography or disavowal

by | Sep 11, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

In order to limit the otherwise plain meaning of the language of the claims, statements in the specification must particularly describe the language at issue. Merely describing related or exemplary features (e.g., “location information” in contrast to the claimed...

SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS v. BIOTAGE AB (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Art is analogous when fields represent close-knit class of inventions for solving technical problem

by | Sep 10, 2014 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

Different fields of invention may nevertheless provide analogous art when the particular technical problem with which the inventor is involved (as opposed to commercial problems concerning the end-product) is such that the two fields represent a relatively close-knit...

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC v. AOL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claim limitations dependent on personal preference and individual circumstances are likely indefinite

by | Sep 10, 2014 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

Although terms of degree are not inherently indefinite, claim limitations that are subject to personal preference and individual circumstances probably are indefinite. For example, displaying peripheral images “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user”...

EPOS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. PEGASUS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Use of terms such as “preferably” or “typically” can distinguish examples from the greater invention

by | Sep 5, 2014 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Use of terms in the specification that clearly set apart specialized examples from the greater invention as a whole—even when at least non-exclusively conveying partiality, such as the terms “preferably” or “typically” here—can be used to avoid an inference that all...