BeckMorrillVanZanten_PatentLitigation_Sp06_Answer

BeckMorrillVanZanten_PatentLitigation_Sp06_Answer - 10:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
10: Exam Name: Instructor: (Exam Number) PA TENT _LITIGA TION_Final Beck/MorillNanZanten Page 1 of 1 Exam taken with SofTest vB.DB
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1) 1. Claim Construction Pet Bed P wants the pet bed to be construed as a limitation because it limits the scope of the prior art the 502 is subject to comparison with. Moreover, if Pet Bed is construed as a limitation the prospective uses to which it can be put and by whom is limited as well. As stated in the facts, P sought to make a specific improvement on pet bed prior art regarding the ability to clean it. By having Pet Bed construed as a limitation it buttresses the other parts of its claim from attacks from prior art references that have nothing to do with the class of pet beds. For example, the 502 specification describes the bolster as "more like a pillow than a wall" and the 44' patent which D wishes to offer into evidence partially describes a pillowcase holding a pillow, but the patented invention is for human beings. 0, on the other hand wants Pet Bed to be constued not as a limitation because this would enable the 44' to be regarded by the court as valid prior art to compare the 502 with. Also, 0 could potentially find and introduce prior art evidence and expert testimony on different types of bolsters, pillows, and cushions and subject the validty of claim 1 of 502 to doubt. P will probably prevail on the construction of Pet Bed as a limitation. This is because of Canon 5 of the Federal Circuit's canons of claim contruction which states that "when there is an equal choice between a borad and a narrow claim construction, the narrow one should always be adopted." Further, in SciMed, the Federal Circuit said Pace 1 of 5
Background image of page 2
(Question 1 continued) ID: that "one purpose of examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims." Here, we know that the 502 specification
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW6571 taught by Professor Abbott during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.

Page1 / 6

BeckMorrillVanZanten_PatentLitigation_Sp06_Answer - 10:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online