Fletcher YoderIf a prior art reference is not in the same field of endeavor of a patent but would have been reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the patent, the prior art reference is analogous prior art to the patent.
It may be possible to find that a claim is both non-obvious and anticipated by the same set of references.
The criticality of an “about” limitation may justify not only a narrow construction of the term but also a narrow range of equivalents.
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.
District court properly entered judgment as matter of law that accused excimer laser eye surgical device does not infringe asserted claims of plaintiff’s laser surgery patents because evidence of record does not support conclusion that accused device meets “beam dimension control means” or “means for focusing“ limitations of claims at issue.
Under the “all-elements rule”, infringement cannot be found by way of the doctrine of equivalents if even one limitation of a claim or its equivalent is not present in the accused device. Thus, when determining the scope of a means-plus-function claim under the doctrine of equivalents, the absence of an element in the accused device that performs the properly construed function, or its equivalent, precludes a finding of infringement.
Claims for a method of “treating or preventing” pernicious anemia by administering folic acid and vitamin B12 “to a human in need thereof” are properly construed to require the compound be administered to a human with a recognized need to treat or prevent anemia.