Fletcher YoderUnder the doctrine of claim differentiation, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it; thus, if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.
Silence on a topic is not enough to disclose absence of a claim feature.
A disclaimer in the specification of a patent specifically excludes subject matter from the invention possessed by the patentee. Removing limitations by rescinding the disclaimer in further continuation patents broadens the description of the invention and would not be within the scope of the invention as described in the prior patent.
Description of a preferred embodiment does not limit the scope of the claims.
Broad claims supported by one embodiment consistently described in the specification can result in disavowal of claim scope beyond that described embodiment.
To anticipate a negative claim limitation, the prior art need not expressly exclude an element when the exclusion of the element can be proven by affirmative evidence showing that the prior art suggests or describes instances in which the element is optional or unnecessary.
Claims covering improvements to computer functionality are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 while recitations directed to results alone are not.
Motivation to combine references will not be extinguished based only on preferred or selected embodiments. To successfully argue that prior art references teach away from combination, there needs to be a showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the prior art to reach any of the embodiments within the scope of the challenged claims.
Although reexamination proceedings are not generally bound by prior judicial construction of a claim term, a claim term still must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.