by Steve Driskill | Feb 21, 2014 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
An examiner’s interpretation of the prior art by itself is not sufficient to warrant prosecution history disclaimer or estoppel. Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to protecting substrates – for example, manhole covers, underground tanks,...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 21, 2014 | Claim Interpretation
Although of little direct or immediate impact on prosecution, retaining centralized de novo review at the Federal Circuit should at least help with providing “national uniformity, consistency, and finality to the meaning and scope of patent claims,” even at the PTO...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 20, 2014 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
There is no universally accepted or standard level of imprecision afforded to numerical values in claims. Any desired flexibility in numerical values should be expressly recited (e.g., using the term “about”) and supported in the description. Ultimately, “[t]he...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 19, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, [sub] doctrine of equivalents, Claim Interpretation, Means Plus Function
“There is no … foreseeability limit on the doctrine of equivalents,” even for “the application of the doctrine of equivalents for means-plus-function limitations.” Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to an improved automobile locking...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 18, 2014 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Although the patentee ultimately prevailed with a broader construction, the use of a definition section in the specification will almost certainly be taken as the requisite clear intent to redefine a given term, and any narrowing statements imported into the claims....
