In the last few posts, I discussed how to interpret “means plus function” clauses and have gone into great depth analyzing the U.S. 6,289,319 Patent issued to Lockwood as an example. In this post, I will, at long last, finalize my analysis of the first “means-plus-function” claim element of U.S. 6,289,319 Patent. Recall from previous […]
In the last few posts, I discussed how to interpret “means plus function” clauses and used the U.S. 6,289,319 Patent as an example. In this post, I will continue my analysis of certain claim elements of the U.S. 6,289,319 Patent. I apologize in advance for the length of this post. Recall from previous posts, the […]
In my last post, I discussed how courts construe “means plus function” clauses in a patent claim. I also discussed the danger for patent owners when they rely upon means plus function clauses if there is no corresponding structure and/or no clear link to the structure in the patent specification. Recall that “means-plus-function” clauses are […]
In a previous post, I explained that when courts usually interpret or “construe” claim terms, they first look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims, then they look to the specification for unique definitions or use of the terms, they also look to the prosecution history, and finally they review extrinsic sources, such […]
A patent is a bargain an inventor makes with the government. The inventor increases public knowledge by disclosing the invention. In return, if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) believes that invention meets the statutory requirements, the inventor receives a monopoly as defined by the claims of the patent. Thus, patents may be thought […]