January 24, 2008
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decided an appeal based upon the use of commonly-used claim terminology, affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding the case back to the district court. In Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., the CAFC reviewed the lower-court’s claim construction, and confirmed a number of items related to specific claim language. A selection of quotes from the opinion relating to the use of common claim terminology is provided below.
“a” or “an”:
“[t]his court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” (quoting KJC Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
“That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention.”
“The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to “one.”” (see KJC Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
“An exception to the general rule that “a” or “an” means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” (see Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996))
“Because the initial indefinite article (“a”) carries either a singular or plural meaning, any later reference to that same claim element merely reflects the same potential plurality.”
“the” or “said”:
“The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning.”
“[T]he use of a definite article (“said” or “the”) to refer back to an initial indefinite article does not implicate, let alone mandate the singular.”
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.: LINK
“a” or “an”:
“[t]his court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” (quoting KJC Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
“That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention.”
“The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to “one.”” (see KJC Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
“An exception to the general rule that “a” or “an” means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” (see Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996))
“Because the initial indefinite article (“a”) carries either a singular or plural meaning, any later reference to that same claim element merely reflects the same potential plurality.”
“the” or “said”:
“The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning.”
“[T]he use of a definite article (“said” or “the”) to refer back to an initial indefinite article does not implicate, let alone mandate the singular.”
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.: LINK
0 comments:
Post a Comment