TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Undefined limitations may be interpreted as broadly as their literal recitations permit

by Steve Driskill | May 11, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Undefined limitations may be interpreted as broadly as their literal recitations permit. Here, for example, a frequency for “low radiation power absorption” was found to be broad enough to encompass any frequency that can be used in any manner to provide a lower dose...

IN RE MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Terms used coextensively in the specification may be treated as synonymous

by Steve Driskill | May 7, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Treating two terms coextensively in the specification leads to an inference that they are related and largely synonymous. Here, for example, a “positional” relationship as in the prior art was found to be equivalent to the claimed indication of a “distance” because...

INFO-HOLD, INC. v. APPLIED MEDIA TECH. CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Use of the term “preferred” implies that alternatives are contemplated

by Steve Driskill | Apr 24, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Use of the term “preferred” when describing example embodiments implies that alternatives are contemplated. Here, for example, the mention in the specification of a “preferred” receive-only manner of communication was found to imply the invention’s ability to operate...

INEOS USA LLC v. BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Establishing “criticality” of claimed range can avoid anticipation by broader, overlapping range

by Steve Driskill | Apr 16, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation

It is important to establish the “criticality” of a claimed range to the claimed invention in order to avoid anticipation by a prior art reference disclosing a broader, overlapping range. Here, for example, a lubricant claimed in the amount of 0.05 to 0.5% by weight...

INTERDIGITAL v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Definitive terms such as “always” designate the corresponding characteristic as universal to the invention

by Steve Driskill | Feb 18, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Use of definitive terms such as “always” indicates that the corresponding characteristic is universal to the invention. Here, for example, the claimed “power control bit” was found to be limited to a single-bit power control command because the specification described...