AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC. v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored

by Steve Driskill | Jan 29, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored. Here, for example, the claimed “pressurized collection vessel” was found to require an accumulation of material rather than just receiving material in a series of pipes and heat...

ATLAS IP, LLC v. MEDTRONIC, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Imprecisions about plurals and conjunctions found in the claim language should be resolved by context

by Steve Driskill | Oct 29, 2015 | [sub] claim context, [sub] grammar, Claim Interpretation

Imprecisions about plurals and conjunctions found in the claim language should be resolved by context. Here, for example, a hub / remote device communication cycle having “intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames” was found to...

SUMMIT 6, LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – An element described as “being provided” in a particular way may not require a separate method step

by Steve Driskill | Sep 21, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A claim limitation describing a previously recited element as “being provided” in a particular way may be interpreted as a characteristic of that element rather than a separate method step. Here, for example, a “pre-processing” step at a client device in accordance...

VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – All words of a claim term must be given meaning

by Steve Driskill | Jun 9, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

All words of a claim term must be given meaning. Here, for example, the term “display format” referring to a video signal was found to require that the video signal be “ready for use” by a conventional external monitor in order to give meaning to the word “display” as...

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...

INFO-HOLD, INC. v. MUZAK LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Claims shall not be construed so as to read any recited term out of the patent

by Steve Driskill | Apr 24, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Claims shall not be construed so as to read any recited term out of the patent. Here, for example, actions occurring “when” a caller is “placed on hold” were found to be limited to the moment the caller is placed on hold, rather than at any point during the period the...