by Steve Driskill | Jun 27, 2014 | [sub] preamble, Claim Interpretation
“A preamble may limit the claimed invention if it recites additional structure or steps that the specification underscores as important, or if it is clearly relied on during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” Background / Facts: The...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 23, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Although claims are not necessarily limited to only the disclosed embodiments, they cannot be interpreted in a manner that would read out any of the claim terms. “[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Background / Facts:...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 20, 2014 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The chain of causation required for “initiating” a given operation may be cut off by an intermediary element more closely associated with the “initiation” even if the preceding element begins the process which ultimately results in that operation. Background / Facts:...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 19, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Claim terms may be limited by an espoused “purpose of the invention” where the specification demonstrates that a particular shortcoming “was a defining feature of [the] prior art,” and that “the patented invention was designed to eliminate” that shortcoming, under the...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 13, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
“Disclosure of a class of algorithms that places no limitations on how values are calculated, combined, or weighted is insufficient to make the bounds of the claims understandable [under the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)].” Further, the fact that a...
