by Steve Driskill | Apr 4, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
The statutory requirement for importing the specification’s structural limitations into a means-plus-function element does not extend to or otherwise impact the interpretation of the recited function as claimed. “When construing functional claims under § 112 ¶ 6, the...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 2, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
While a context-specific analysis, an explicit order of operations in the claims may affect the interpretation of individual claim terms by providing additional antecedent basis for linking elements among the recited steps. Background / Facts: The patent being...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 28, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
While a fact specific inquiry, an adjective characterizing a claim element may be interpreted as a direct property of the claim element itself rather than an emergent property derived from the claim element’s interaction with other elements (claimed or unclaimed)....
by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2014 | [sub] preamble, Claim Interpretation
Limitations in the body of the claim that rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble may render the preamble a necessary component of the claimed invention. A claim drafter should therefore take care to avoid, as here, converting the entire preamble into...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 18, 2014 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
The fact that the claims encompass many variables and parameters does not by itself require undue experimentation. Adjusting variables may be relevant to optimizing a given implementation, but optimization may not be required in order to practice the claimed invention...
