![\"](\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/ip-man1.jpg\" "\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n2) \u00a0The Mayo v. Prometheus<\/span> T-Shirt<\/p>\n Was your Valentine an amicus<\/em> in Mayo v. Prometheus<\/span>? \u00a0Celebrate the Supreme Court and the clarity that it has brought to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7101.<\/p>\n 3) \u00a0Special Effects Nose Wax<\/p>\n A patent attorney can always use more nose wax despite what the Supreme Court said in White v. Dunbar<\/span>, 119 U.S. 47 (1886)<\/span>:<\/p>\n Some persons seem to suppose that a claim in a patent is like a nose of wax, which may be turned and twisted in any direction, by merely referring to the specification, so as to make it include something more than, or something different from, what its words express. The context may undoubtedly be resorted to, and often is resorted to, for the purpose of better understanding the meaning of the claim, but not for the purpose of changing it and making it different from what\u00a0it is. The claim is a statutory requirement, prescribed for the very purpose of making the patentee define precisely what his invention is, and it is unjust to the public, as well as an evasion of the law, to construe it in a manner different from the plain import of its terms.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n