Module 17 2024

Claim Construction Example • The court first looked at the claim language and found that “spring means” was listed separately, and that the presumption was that it was a distinct component of the invention • The court next looked at the specification and found that this confirmed its finding above – No discussion in the specification of an embodiment not including a distinct “spring means” – Specification discloses that storage of energy in the hinge is undesirable, because it can adversely affect reliability • Finally, the court found that interpreting the claim broadly to not require a distinct “spring means” would render it invalid over the prior art

47

Claim Construction Example

• However, patentee further argued that the specification states that a spring “may” be provided, and that therefore a distinct “spring means” was not required • The court responded that the patent includes at least one other independent claim (that was not asserted) that does not recite a distinct spring means, and that the relevant statement only referred to that embodiment

48

24