Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OY
In determining obviousness, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language found in the specification is not altered by use of passive voice and plural language in the claims.
In determining obviousness, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language found in the specification is not altered by use of passive voice and plural language in the claims.
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.