|
Omega Engineering v. Raytech
The CAFC found that the trial court's ruling incorporated into the claim
language a novel negative limitation, precluding the laser beam affected by
the "means for causing" from striking the center or the interior of the
energy zone, finds no anchor in the explicit claim language. The express
text of the claims does not prohibit the laser beam from striking inside the
energy zone. Nor is that negative limitation inherent in the term
"periphery." That definition does not necessitate the addition of a negative
limitation, since nothing in the term's denotation precludes the laser beam
from striking inside the energy zone's perimeter. Accordingly, the CAFC
conclude that there is no basis in the patent specification for adding the
negative limitation.
For more patent information, see
http://www.patentcribsheet.com/Cases/omega.html.
--------------------------------
This posting contains educational information for lawyers directly
impacting patent preparation and prosecution. It does not constitute legal
advice, nor does it create or constitute any attorney-client relationship.
|
| |
| |
|
