Ring & Pinion Serv., Inc. v. ARB Corp.
Foreseeability of asserted equivalence at the time of patenting is not a bar to the doctrine of equivalents.
Results for § 112
view Case Detail
Download PDF
In re Skvorecz
The Federal Circuit finds that the B.P.A.I. incorrectly construed the claim term “comprising”, further noting that the protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination is solely an examination expedient and does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.
Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Indus., Inc.,
Method for forming plastic composites is not invalid for failure to specify method for calculating volumetric percentage of wood flour used in process, since persons of experience in the field would understand how to measure parts by volume and convert weight into volume from bulk density data.
Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.
A claim is presumptively not a means-plus-function claim under § 112, paragraph 6, absent a recitation of the term “means.”