{"id":5016,"date":"2012-03-31T11:33:36","date_gmt":"2012-03-31T17:33:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=5016"},"modified":"2012-03-31T11:33:36","modified_gmt":"2012-03-31T17:33:36","slug":"associate-solicitor-encourages-federal-circuit-to-apply-boilerplate-from-specification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=5016","title":{"rendered":"Associate Solicitor Encourages Federal Circuit to Apply Boilerplate from Specification"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In the oral argument of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re LG Electronics, Inc.<\/span>, App. No. 2011-1248 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Associate Solicitor for the USPTO argued that a purportedly limiting statement in the specification of the Applicant&#8217;s\u00a0patent under reexamination\u00a0should not be considered a\u00a0clear disavowal.\u00a0 One\u00a0argument\u00a0that the Associate Solicitor\u00a0relied upon was that\u00a0there could be no clear disavowal\u00a0when the boilerplate of\u00a0the\u00a0same specification called for the claims not to be limited by the disclosed embodiments.<\/p>\n<p>In what sounded like a tongue-in-cheek comment to me, Judge Newman remarked:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Well, that&#8217;s very interesting.\u00a0 We&#8217;ve seen that identical boilerplate in probably six or seven million patents.\u00a0 And, now you&#8217;re telling us that for the first time\u00a0we should &#8230; apply it.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>You can listen to Judge Newman&#8217;s remark here:\u00a0 [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/03\/2011-1248-excerpt-2.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2011-1248.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>You can review the Rule 36 opinion here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/11-1248.pdf\">Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the oral argument of In re LG Electronics, Inc., App. No. 2011-1248 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Associate Solicitor for the USPTO argued that a purportedly limiting statement in the specification of the Applicant&#8217;s\u00a0patent under reexamination\u00a0should not be considered a\u00a0clear disavowal.\u00a0 One\u00a0argument\u00a0that the Associate Solicitor\u00a0relied upon was that\u00a0there could be no clear disavowal\u00a0when the boilerplate [&hellip;]<\/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\/5016"}],"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=5016"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5031,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016\/revisions\/5031"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}