There are a number of ways that a patent applicant can end up with less than the patent applicant appeared to claim:<\/p>\n
No. 10 Disclaiming claim scope during prosecution of the application.<\/strong> \u00a0However, this disclaimer must be clear and unmistakable. \u00a0Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp.<\/em>, 334 F.3d 1314, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2003).<\/p>\n No. 9 Distinguishing the prior art.<\/strong> \u00a0See,\u00a0SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.<\/em>, 727 F.3d 1187 [108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001] (Fed. Cir. 2013)(excluding the use of beads from the claimed three dimensional culturing based upon statements distinguishing the prior art).<\/p>\n No. 8 Criticizing the prior art.<\/strong> \u00a0See,\u00a0Chicago Board Options Exchange Inc. v. International Securities Exchange LLC<\/em>, 677 F3d 1361 [102 USPQ2d 1683] (Fed. Cir. 2012)(limiting scope of claims based upon characterization of prior art as \u201cantiquated,\u201d and having \u201cinherent inadequacies,\u201d and \u201cdeficiencies.\u201d); Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., <\/em>242 F.3d 1337 [58 USPQ2d 1059] (Fed. Cir. 2001)(limiting claims to \u201ccoaxial lumen configuration\u201d based, in part, criticisms of the dual lumen prior art in the Background Of the Invention.); Astrazeneca AB v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.<\/em>, 72 USPQ2d 1726 [72 USPQ2d 1726, 1730] (Fed. Cir. 2004)(limiting the meaning of solubilizer because of criticisms of prior art).<\/p>\n No. 7 Identifying “Objects” of the Invention.<\/strong>\u00a0 See,\u00a0The Gentry Gallery Inc. v. The Berkline Corp.<\/em>, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. 1998)(liming the location of controls so that the claimed invention meets the objects).<\/p>\n No. 6 Failing to describe more than one embodiment.<\/strong> \u00a0See,\u00a0Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. America Online Inc.<\/em>, 197 F3d 1377 [53 USPQ 1161] (Fed. Cir. 1999)(determining that the claims were properly limited to the \u201conly embodiment described.\u201d);\u00a0General American Transportation Corp. v. Cryo-Trans, Inc.<\/em>, 93 F.3d 766, 770, 772, [39 USPQ2d 1801, 1803, 1805-06] (Fed.Cir. 1996)(limiting the claims to the disclosure which was \u201cnot just the preferred embodiment of the invention; it is the only one described\u201d); Watts v. XL Systems Inc.<\/em>, 232 F3d 877, 56 USPQ2d 1836 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(limiting sealingly connected because the specification \u201c only describes one method in which \u2018tapered external threads [are] dimensioned\u2019 to achieve the sealing connection.\u201d); Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n,<\/em> 75 F.3d 1545, 1551 [37 USPQ2d 1609, 1612] (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed limited to disclosed embodiment because \u201cwhen the preferred embodiment is described in the specification as the invention itself, the claims are not necessarily entitled to a scope broader than that embodiment.\u201d).<\/p>\n No. 5 Using i.e.<\/em> instead of e.g.<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0See\u00a0Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., <\/em>582 F3d 1322 [92 USPQ2d 1599] (Fed. Cir. 2009)(limiting the construction of the term malleable, because \u201cthe specification’s use of \u201ci.e.\u201d signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.\u201d); see, also, Abbott Laboratories v. Novopharm Ltd., <\/em>323 F3d 1324 [66 USPQ2d 1200] (Fed. Cir. 2003).<\/p>\n No. 4 Incorporating definitions or limitations “by reference.”<\/strong> \u00a0X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358 [111 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(claims limited by statements incorporated by reference).<\/p>\n No. 3 Failing to Identify described matter as “preferred.”<\/strong> \u00a0See\u00a0Honeywell International Inc. v. ITT Industries Inc.<\/em>, 452 F3d 1312 [79 USPQ2d 1294, 1299] (Fed. Cir. 2006)( limiting \u201cfuel injection system component\u201d to a fuel filter because a fuel filter was not merely discussed as a preferred embodiment); see, also,\u00a0Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.<\/em>, 224 F.3d 1328 [56 USPQ2d 1208](Fed. Cir. 2000)(Claims limited to use of citric acid where \u201cpreferably\u201d language separated by a comma, and thus did not apply.).<\/p>\n No. 2 Use of unnecessarily narrow language.<\/strong>\u00a0 For example “very important”<\/strong> (Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.<\/em>, 450 F.3d 1350 [78 USPQ2d 1786, 1788] (Fed. Cir. 2006)(limiting claims because of \u201cvery important\u201d feature described in specification.));\u00a0\u201cimportant feature,\u201d<\/strong> (SafeTCare Manufacturing Inc. v. Tele-Made Inc., 497 F3d 1262 [83 USPQ2d 1618] (Fed. Cir. 2007)(limiting claims because of an \u201cimportant feature of the present invention\u201d described in specification).);\u00a0\u00a0\u201ccritical,\u201d<\/strong> (harmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.<\/em>, 182 F.3d 1373 [50 USPQ2d 1033, 1037] (Fed. Cir. 1999)(limiting the claims because the specification indicated that \u201cthe use of spray-dried lactose is a critical feature of the present invention.\u201d).)\u00a0\u201cnecessary,\u201d<\/strong> (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp.,<\/em> 441 F.3d 991 [78 USPQ2d 1417, 1421](Fed. Cir. 2006)(Statement in specification that \u201cit is necessary<\/em> to have a catalyst to have a catalyst containing solely chromium\u201d limited claims).);\u00a0\u201csolely,\u201d<\/strong> (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp 441 F.3d 991 [78 USPQ2d 1417, 1421]( (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Statement in specification that \u201cit is necessary to have a catalyst to have a catalyst containing solely<\/em> chromium\u201d limited claims).);\u00a0\u201cessential,\u201d<\/strong> (X2Y Attenuators v. ITC,<\/em> [110 USPQ2d 1707, 1610] (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2014)(limiting claims to sandwich configuration because of description in specification that the sandwich configuration is \u201can essential element among all embodiments\u201d).) \u00a0\u201crequires,\u201d<\/strong> (Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC<\/em>, 474 F.3d 1361, 1367 [81 USPQ2d 1545, 1549] (Fed. Cir. 2007)(limiting the claims because of a statement in the specification that successful manufacture \u201crequires\u201d a particular step).); \u00a0and\u00a0\u201cuniversal\u201d<\/strong> (X2Y Attenuators v. ITC,<\/em> [110 USPQ2d 1707, 1610] (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2014)(limiting claims to sandwich configuration because of description in specification that the sandwich configuration is a \u201cfeature [] universal to all the embodiments\u201d).)<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n No. 1 Describing “the invention” rather than embodiments of the invention.<\/strong> \u00a0See,\u00a0Honeywell International Inc. v. ITT Industries Inc.<\/em>, 452 F3d 1312 [79 USPQ2d 1294, 1299] (Fed. Cir. 2006)(limiting \u201cfuel injection system component\u201d to a fuel filter because at least four times the specification described it as \u201cthis invention\u201d or \u201cthe present invention\u201d); Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.<\/em>, 778 F.3d 1021 [113 USPQ2d 1859, 1862] (Fed. Cir. 2015)(noting that \u201cthe present invention includes \u2026\u201d or \u201cthe present invention is \u2026\u201d or \u201call embodiments of the present invention are \u2026.\u201d limits the claims); Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., <\/em>242 F.3d 1447 [58 USPQ2d 1059] (Fed. Cir. 2001)( limiting claims to \u201ccoaxial lumen configuration\u201d based, in part, on description of \u201cthe invention\u201d and \u201cthe present invention.\u201d); Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., <\/em>232 F.3d 877 [56 USPQ2d 1836, 1840]\u00a0(Fed. Cir. 2000)(limiting claims to use of misaligned taper angles based on description of \u201cthe present invention\u201d); Astrazeneca AB v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.<\/em>, 384 F.3d 1333 [72 USPQ2d 1726, 1730] (Fed. Cir. 2004)(limiting claims to solubilizers suitable according to the invention).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There are a number of ways that a patent applicant can end up with less than the patent applicant appeared to claim: No. 10 Disclaiming claim scope during prosecution of the application. \u00a0However, this disclaimer must be clear and unmistakable. … Continue reading