International Business Machines Corp. v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Silence on a topic is not enough to disclose absence of a claim feature.
Results for claim construction
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc., Adidas America, Inc.
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.
Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation, Ibiden U.S.A. Corporation, Ibiden Company Limited
Description of a preferred embodiment does not limit the scope of the claims.
Techtronic Indus. v. International Trade Commission and The Chamberlain Group
Broad claims supported by one embodiment consistently described in the specification can result in disavowal of claim scope beyond that described embodiment.
WAG Acquisition, LLC v. WebPower, Inc.
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.
Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp.
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.
In re Power Integrations, Inc.
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.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Claims covering improvements to computer functionality are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 while recitations directed to results alone are not.