|
Sunrace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd., et al. v. Sram Corp.
While the CAFC found this to be a "close case," it concluded that the
ordinary meaning of the term "shift actuator" controls because neither the
specification nor the prosecution history clearly defines the shift actuator
as including a cam or disclaims a shift actuator that does not include a
cam. Because the intrinsic evidence does not clearly narrow the term "shift
actuator" to a device containing a cam, the CAFC found that the district
court erred by construing the term in that manner.
For more patent information, see
http://www.patentcribsheet.com/Cases/sunrace.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.
|
| |
| |
|
