{"id":3982,"date":"2011-05-01T12:44:26","date_gmt":"2011-05-01T18:44:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3982"},"modified":"2011-05-01T12:44:26","modified_gmt":"2011-05-01T18:44:26","slug":"feature-of-the-present-invention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3982","title":{"rendered":"“Feature of the present invention”"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Technologies, Inc. et al.<\/span>, 2009-1494 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2011), the Federal Circuit addressed the construction of a phrase in a claim\u00a0that included the word “within.”\u00a0\u00a0 The court addressed whether a time limitation, such as “always within,” should be included in the\u00a0claim construction of “within.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

What interested me most about the oral argument was something that does not appear in the court’s opinion.\u00a0 Namely, there was a discussion of the weight that should be given to the language from\u00a0the specification that referred to\u00a0“an important feature of the present invention.”\u00a0 Judge Prost had the following exchanges with the counsel for the appellee: [Listen<\/a>] and [Listen<\/a>].\u00a0<\/p>\n

It is arguable whether the word “feature” is any different from the word “aspect.”\u00a0 See this\u00a0link<\/a> for a recent discussion of the phrase\u00a0“aspect of the invention.”<\/p>\n

On an unrelated note, you often hear the admonishment of no new issues should be argued\u00a0on appeal.\u00a0 In this case, the appellee argued that construction of the word “within” was a new argument on appeal: [Listen<\/a>].\u00a0 Nevertheless, the court addressed the argument in its opinion.<\/p>\n

You can read the court’s opinion here: [Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n

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

(The other interesting thing about this case is that it was an affirmance by the Federal Circuit\u00a0of a summary judgment of infringement of a means plus function<\/span> claim.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Technologies, Inc. et al., 2009-1494 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2011), the Federal Circuit addressed the construction of a phrase in a claim\u00a0that included the word “within.”\u00a0\u00a0 The court addressed whether a time limitation, such as “always within,” should be included in the\u00a0claim construction of “within.”\u00a0 What interested me most […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3982"}],"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=3982"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3982\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3992,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3982\/revisions\/3992"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}