Fletcher YoderClaim construction regarding recitation of an element (e.g., tungsten) in conjunction with an open-ended claim term (comprising) allowing for construction of the term as a compound is made in view of the context of the term in the claim in which it appears, support in the patent, including the specification, and extrinsic evidence.
The use of a term in an earlier application does not reinstate the term in a later application if the term is purposely deleted, even if the earlier application is incorporated by reference.
Description of a computer-readable recording medium including various examples of non-transitory media does not leave the door open for interpreting a claimed “computer-readable recording medium” as encompassing transitory media
“A” means one or more, but use of “the” or “said” thereafter indicates a reference back to the previously claimed term and may require a single claim element to be capable of performing all recited functionality.
Under 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.
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.
Silence on a topic is not enough to disclose absence of a claim feature.
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.