Results for prosecution history

Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0471

Date: 02.10.2021

Claims are indefinite if, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, the claims fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Use claim terms that are defined in the specification. Further, ensure that arguments during prosecution are not contradictory

view Case Detail Download PDF

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

Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems Inc.

Case Number: CLB0041

Date: 02.03.2004

Asserted claims of patents directed to systems and methods for simultaneously transmitting voice and/or computer data are restricted to communications over telephone lines, and thus do not encompass communications over packet-switched network such as Internet, even though only one claim at issue explicitly states that transmission of data packets must occur “over a telephone line,” since specification repeatedly and consistently describes systems of claimed inventions as communicating directly over telephone line.

view Case Detail Download PDF

SuperGuide Corp. v. DirectTV Enterprises Inc.

Case Number: CLB0043

Date: 02.12.2004

Term “regularly received television signal,” in claim of patent directed to searchable electronic television program guide in which “mixer” combines received television signal and signal generated by microcontroller, does not exclude digital technology from claim’s coverage, even though televisions existing in 1985, when application was filed, could not receive digital signals, since claim language does not specify particular type of signal format, and existence of digital video data was know in art.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Case Number: CLB0033

Date: 01.20.2004

Limitation in claim directed to remote-controlled search light, which recites “horizontal drive means for rotating said lamp unit in a horizontal direction,” is not limited to device capable of rotating horizontally through 360 degrees, despite written description’s disclosure of assembly capable of such rotation, since nothing in written description requires limiting function to rotation through any particular angle.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Jansen v. Rexall Sundown Inc.

Case Number: CLB0015

Date: 09.08.2003

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.

view Case Detail Download PDF