|
Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. vs.. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester,
Inc.
The CAFC rejected the district court's reasoning that one claim limitation
may not be responsive to another merely because they are located in the same
physical structure. Instead, the CAFC found that one skilled in the art,
when reading the prosecution history, would conclude that demodulation is
performed by the photo-sensitive detectors. Therefore the CAFC reversed the
lower court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity.
For more patent information, see
http://www.patentcribsheet.com/Cases/intellet.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.
|
| |
| |
|
