{"id":3255,"date":"2010-10-25T17:28:49","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T23:28:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3255"},"modified":"2010-10-25T18:25:46","modified_gmt":"2010-10-26T00:25:46","slug":"construing-the-phrase-optical-signal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3255","title":{"rendered":"Construing the phrase “optical signal”"},"content":{"rendered":"

The oral argument in Cheetah Omni v. Samsung Electronics, et al.<\/span>, 2010-1169 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2010) is interesting in that it dealt with the construction of the term “optical signal” and whether in view of the underlying facts for the\u00a0patent at issue\u00a0that term should be construed to mean that information must be carried by the “optical signal.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

The\u00a0plaintiff-appellant argued that in view of the facts, such as (1) that the claim language recited “optical signal carrying information” (which would make the language “carrying information” redundant if “optical signal” itself\u00a0were construed to mean carrying information) and that (2) the patent office only\u00a0applied references\u00a0during prosecution that were light beams not<\/span> including information, among other arugments, that the term “optical signal” should be construed to mean that no information may be carried by the optical signal.\u00a0 The defendant-appellee noted that all four examples in the specification used “optical signal”\u00a0to mean that information was carried by the optical signal.<\/p>\n

Curiously, the Federal Circuit issued another Rule 36 opinion.\u00a0 It seems to me that the appellant’s redundancy argument warrants a more detailed\u00a0opinion and takes\u00a0the appeal\u00a0out of Rule 36 territory.<\/p>\n

Judge Clevenger made the following\u00a0comment that there is no such thing as\u00a0one hundred\u00a0percent\u00a0certitude\u00a0when it comes to\u00a0claim construction: [Listen<\/a>].\u00a0<\/p>\n

You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n

Here is a link to the court’s Rule 36 opinion: [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The oral argument in Cheetah Omni v. Samsung Electronics, et al., 2010-1169 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2010) is interesting in that it dealt with the construction of the term “optical signal” and whether in view of the underlying facts for the\u00a0patent at issue\u00a0that term should be construed to mean that information must be carried by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3255"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3255"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3255\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3263,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3255\/revisions\/3263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}