{"id":121,"date":"2014-05-01T12:16:48","date_gmt":"2014-05-01T16:16:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=121"},"modified":"2014-05-03T12:41:45","modified_gmt":"2014-05-03T16:41:45","slug":"plain-meaning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=121","title":{"rendered":"Plain Meaning"},"content":{"rendered":"

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v.\u00a0Agilight, Inc<\/em>., 2013-1267 (May 1, 2014), the Federal Circuti revesrsed the district court’s claim construction of the term “IDC connector” which imported limitations from the preferred embodiment.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that the specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit added: The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,\u00a0and clearly express an intent to define the term.\u00a0 Similarly, disavowal requires that \u201cthe specification or prosecution history make clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit found no lexicography or disavowal, and reitereated\u00a0that a\u00a0patent that only discloses one embodiemtn is not necessarily limited to that one embodiment.\u00a0 In construing \u201csubstantially ellipsoidal inner profile\u201d the Federal Circuit applied another classic canon of claim construction: one normally do not construe claims in a manner that would exclude the preferred embodiment, especially where it is the only disclosed embodiment.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

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

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v.\u00a0Agilight, Inc., 2013-1267 (May 1, 2014), the Federal Circuti revesrsed the district court’s claim construction of the term “IDC connector” which imported limitations from the preferred embodiment.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that the specification and prosecution … 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-121","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\/121","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=121"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":122,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions\/122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}