Results for claim interpretation

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0175

Date: 03.31.2008

Based on intrinsic evidence, the Federal Circuit affirms a district court claim construction decision in which the conjunction “and” is used to express mutually exclusive alternatives. Additionally, in view of evidence of unpredictability among alternative formulations, unexpected results, and objective indicia of nonobviousness, the Federal Circuit affirms the lower court finding of nonobviousness of a claimed compound.

view Case Detail Download PDF

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.

Case Number: CLB0181

Date: 04.03.2008

A district court must construe all disputed claim terms when the meaning of the terms affects the scope of the claims. The doctrine of equivalents does not apply if the objectively apparent reason for a narrowing amendment is not tangential to an alleged equivalent as indicated by clear claim language.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Alappat

Case Number: CLB0086

Date: 07.29.1994

If an algorithm can be claimed so as to be a machine claim then it is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The conversion of data into another form of data is patentable if embodied in a machine to carry out this task.

view Case Detail

Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0097

Date: 09.16.2005

Use of term “first pivot point” in claims for exercise apparatus is not expression of location, since claims include extension arms, and use of terms “first pivot point” and “second pivot point” distinguishes pivot point on “first extension arm” from that on “second extension arm” without suggesting where on extension arm pivot points are located.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Gaus v. Conair Corp.

Case Number: CLB0076

Date: 04.01.2004

Patentee may not utilize the doctrine of equivalents to increase claim scope to include subject matter either expressly or impliedly excluded by the patent itself.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB

Case Number: CLB0034

Date: 09.22.2003

When interpreting a means-plus-function claim, corresponding structure in a patent specification does not include software where only hardware elements are shown and described in the specification and there is no clear indication that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that software could be used to perform the specific function set forth in the claim element.

view Case Detail Download PDF