INDACON, INC. v. FACEBOOK, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Claim differentiation does not apply where the claims are not otherwise identical in scope

by | Jun 6, 2016 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

The doctrine of claim differentiation does not apply where the claims are not otherwise identical in scope. Here, for example, while certain claims clearly distinguished between “instances” of text strings and “all instances” of the text strings, the claimed invention...

PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY LLC v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Claim language that “is tailored to, characterizes, and delimits” a claim element is intrinsic requirement

by | May 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Claim language that “is tailored to, characterizes, and delimits” a claim element may be interpreted as an intrinsic requirement of that element rather than expressing a mere possibility. Here, for example, specifying that the claimed picture frame / display is...

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP. v. ZIMMER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Boilerplate disclaimers purporting to limit the specification to preferred embodiments will be ineffective

by | May 12, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Boilerplate disclaimers characterizing all descriptions in the specification as being directed to preferred embodiments only will be ineffective at best, and may be problematic in establishing adequate written description support. Here, for example, statements that...

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS v. ACER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – There must be a nexus between the claim language and teachings purported to define the claimed invention

by | Apr 25, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

There must generally be a nexus between the claim language and any teachings in the specification purported to define the claimed invention. Here, for example, the scope of the claimed “buffer memory” was found to be broader than the full-frame buffers described in...

IN RE MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECH LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Broadest reasonable interpretation does not cover prior art explicitly disclaimed in the specification

by | Apr 19, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO does not ordinarily cover prior art implementations explicitly disclaimed in the specification. Here, for example, a hand-held remote control device claimed as being “adapted to be held by the human...