{"id":1096,"date":"2016-08-01T12:00:14","date_gmt":"2016-08-01T16:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1096"},"modified":"2016-08-03T08:26:26","modified_gmt":"2016-08-03T12:26:26","slug":"repeated-and-consistent-usage-including-in-rule-131-declaration-defines-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1096","title":{"rendered":"Repeated and Consistent Usage, including in Rule 131 Declaration, Defines Term"},"content":{"rendered":"

in GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.<\/em>, [2015-1825] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination of noninfringement of \u00a0U.S.\u00a0Patent Nos. 7,570,954 and \u00a07,792,492, relating\u00a0to a two-way paging system.<\/p>\n

The focus was on the construction of the term node, which aside from the claims, was only used in the abstract. \u00a0The Federal Circuit began by noting that\u00a0the only meaning that\u00a0matters in claim construction is the meaning in the\u00a0context of the patent. \u00a0The Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0when a patent repeatedly\u00a0and consistently\u201d characterizes a claim term in a particular\u00a0way, it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance
\nwith that characterization. \u00a0The Federal Circuit also relied upon the\u00a0prosecution history\u00a0citing the way the “invention”\u00a0was consistently and exclusively described in the inventor\u2019s\u00a0Rule 131 declaration. \u00a0The patent owner’s arguments about claim differentiation were rejected because of the consistent usages in the\u00a0specification and the prosecution history.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also found it proper to require that the node \u201coperates independently of a telephone\u00a0network,\u201d even though it was derived from a \u201csingle summation\u00a0sentence\u201d from the specification. However, this sentence read:<\/p>\n

Thus, the invention provides a\u00a0two-way paging system which operates independently\u00a0from a telephone system for wireless data communication\u00a0between users.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that when a patent describes the\u00a0features of the “present invention” as a whole, this description\u00a0limits the scope of the invention.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also rejected the patent owner’s complaint that the district court should have construed the term “pager,” stating that where a district court has resolved the questions about\u00a0claim scope that were raised by the parties, it is under no\u00a0obligation to address other potential ambiguities that\u00a0have no bearing on the operative scope of the claim. \u00a0A\u00a0court need not attempt\u00a0the impossible task of resolving all questions of meaning\u00a0with absolute, univocal finality. \u00a0Only\u00a0those terms need be construed that are in controversy,\u00a0and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. \u00a0This is because \u201c[s]uch an endeavor could proceed\u00a0ad infinitum, as every word\u2014whether a claim term itself,\u00a0or the words a court uses to construe a claim term\u2014is\u00a0susceptible to further definition, elucidation, and explanation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict of no infringement.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

,\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

in GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., [2015-1825] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination of noninfringement of \u00a0U.S.\u00a0Patent Nos. 7,570,954 and \u00a07,792,492, relating\u00a0to a two-way paging system. The focus was on the construction of the term … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1096"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1097,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1096\/revisions\/1097"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}