ALFRED E. MANN FOUNDATION v. COCHLEAR CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Broad class of algorithms does not provide structure for computer-implemented means-plus-function elements

by | Nov 17, 2016 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

A broad class of algorithms for performing the function of a computer-implemented means-plus-function element, as opposed to a single or small set of algorithms, is not sufficiently definite to provide the requisite algorithmic structure. Here, for example, the...

POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Disparaging a particular feature in the prior art generally constitutes a disclaimer of that feature

by | Oct 14, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Disparaging a particular feature in the prior art generally constitutes a disclaimer of that feature in the claimed invention. Here, for example, a trash bag with so-called “short seals” in its upper corners was found to be limited to a design in which the short seals...

INTERTAINER, INC. v. HULU, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform multiple functions does not exclude multiple elements

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

A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform a plurality of functions does not exclude multiple elements performing those functions when no structural limitations are recited. Here, for example, a “link program” adapted to “both … interrupt streaming of the...

GPNE CORP. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Both repeated and summation characterizations of the invention serve to limit the invention as a whole

by | Aug 1, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Both repeated and summation characterizations of the invention serve to limit the invention as a whole. Here, for example, the generic term “node” was found to be limited to a “pager … that operates independently from a telephone network” because the specification...

UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Descriptions only tangentially related to characterizing “the present invention” are not limiting per se

by | Jul 22, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Descriptions that are only tangentially related to characterizations of “the present invention” should not be read as constituting a mandatory claim limitation to be read into the claims. Here, for example, a statement about the “present invention” in the first...