Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chris Gebauer]

Does anyone know the name or cite of a big patent case a few years ago stating that if you disclaim something in the specification you can not then go try to construe your claims to cover what you disclaimed?

For example if you state something must fall within a specific range in the spec., then you can't go and say your claims should include something outside that range.

Thanks

[W]

http://www.dryjapat.com/sec112p1.htm

[clarklawyer]

I'm not sure what case you are referring to.

Generally speaking if something is disclaimed in the
specification in the way you describe, there would seem to
be at least one problem with 35 USC 112 1st paragraph.
That kind of problem should be found during examination.

Maybe your question is not about claiming but rather about
how the claims are construed.

[JimIvey]

I think he's referring to Festo.

http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/nov2000/95-1066.wp.html

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-1543.pdf

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1543

I think one of the Justices mentioned that the case was about an exception to an exception to an exception to the general rule that a claim covers what it says it covers.

General rule: Claim covers what it says it covers.
...unless, infringer substitutes an equivalent for a claim element (the "you know what we meant" rule of claim construction -- the Doctrine of Equivalents).
...unless, you amended that claim element during prosecution (Prosecution History Estoppel).
...unless, the amendment was not related to patentability of the claim.
...unless, you forgot to say the amendment was for some reason unrelated to patentability.
...unless, the amendment didn't narrow the claim.
...unless, an amendment to a different, related claim narrows the application as a whole (new case after Festo).

That's it, so far.  Pretty simple, huh?  ;-)

Regards.