Results for intrinsic evidence

W.E. Hall Co. v. Atlanta Corrugating LLC

Case Number: CLB0092

Date: 06.07.2004

During claim construction, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings unless the patentee explicitly provided an alternative definition; intrinsic evidence illustrates the patentee distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art, expressly disclaimed subject matter, or stressed a particular feature as important to the invention; or the term employed obfuscates the scope of the claim.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Nystrom v. TREX Co.

Case Number: CLB0096

Date: 09.14.2005

Absent some indication in written description and/or prosecution history that inventor intended claim term to cover more than ordinary and customary meaning revealed by context of intrinsic record, it is improper to read term to encompass broader definition found in dictionary; in action for infringement of claims directed to board used in constructing floors, intrinsic record limits scope of term “board” to wood cut from log.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp.

Case Number: CLB0102

Date: 08.16.2005

The term “clear” was construed to mean “transparent” or “having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering,” and was distinguished from “translucent.” The construction was supported by the written description, the prosecution history, and dictionary definitions.

view Case Detail Download PDF