![]() Using the neutralizer to determine the angle necessary to place the left ankle in a neutral position and Providing an insert having an angle which represents the neutral state for the right ankle įor creating a left foot insert, having the individual place the left foot on a neutralizer while elevating the right foot off of the neutralizer Using the neutralizer to determine the angle necessary to place the right ankle in a neutral position A method of fitting an individual with right and left foot inserts which place the ankles of the individual in a neutral position comprising the steps of:įor creating a right foot insert, having the individual place the right foot on a neutralizer while elevating the left foot off of the neutralizer For purposes of brevity, only claim 1 will be discussed. The district court in ProFoot was tasked with interpreting claims 1 and 3 of ProFoot, Inc.’s (“ProFoot”) U.S. ![]() 26, 2016), which seemingly imports limitations from the specification into the claims? The answer to this question depends upon the specific facts of this case. This difficulty is a problem, because importing limitations from the specification is regarded by the courts as being “‘one of the cardinal sins of patent law.’” īut, if importing limitations into claim terms is considered to be a major breach, how can the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit justify the result reached in the unpublished, nonprecedential opinion ProFoot, Inc. Therein lies the issue: by reading the claims in view of the specification, it is exceedingly difficult to merely interpret the claims in view of the specification, rather than to import limitations into the claims from the specification. AWH Corp., “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” ![]() If, on its face, claim construction seems rather straight- forward, where does the problem lie? Perhaps giving rise to the difficulty of interpreting claim language is the conundrum that the claims themselves are not dispositive. After all, it is well understood that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. ![]() Ĭlaim construction is a seemingly simple proposition that continues to challenge even the most seasoned patent practitioners, as well as the courts. Originally published in the New York Intellectual Property Law Association’s December 2016- January 2017 edition of The Report. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |