Interesting parts of Doc 297 - laying the ground in trial & appeal(6)
in response to
by
Message: Interesting parts of Doc 297 - laying the ground in trial & appeal(6)
The ‘774 Patent specification does not support Defendants’ proposed limitation.
Throughout the specification and specifically at 1:18-25, 3:1-4 and 5:19-21, the device is
referred to generally as a record/playback device, as opposed to being referred to as a dictation
device. For example, at 1:18-25, the specification discusses prior art devices that are capable of
recording and playback and use recording media such as records and CDs. Likewise, the
specification at 3:1-4 describes the invention as “a record/playback device which can be readily
inserted into monitoring devices which provide data output for keeping a permanent record of
such data output.” Again, the specification at 5:19-21 references a device used “for playback of
music that incorporates a high fidelity speaker.” One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand these devices to be something different than a dictation device
Throughout the specification and specifically at 1:18-25, 3:1-4 and 5:19-21, the device is
referred to generally as a record/playback device, as opposed to being referred to as a dictation
device. For example, at 1:18-25, the specification discusses prior art devices that are capable of
recording and playback and use recording media such as records and CDs. Likewise, the
specification at 3:1-4 describes the invention as “a record/playback device which can be readily
inserted into monitoring devices which provide data output for keeping a permanent record of
such data output.” Again, the specification at 5:19-21 references a device used “for playback of
music that incorporates a high fidelity speaker.” One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand these devices to be something different than a dictation device
Make no mistake about it that the preferred embodiment arises from and is based on the
Flashback product, which is a portable dictation device, but that is no reason to narrow the
claims through claim construction to a single embodiment of the invention. As previously discussed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly admonished against narrowing claims beyond the breadth of the specification or limiting claims to a single embodiment.
Based on the claims themselves and the ‘774 Patent specification, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand the phrase record/playback device to be limited to a dictation device.
Flashback product, which is a portable dictation device, but that is no reason to narrow the
claims through claim construction to a single embodiment of the invention. As previously discussed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly admonished against narrowing claims beyond the breadth of the specification or limiting claims to a single embodiment.
Based on the claims themselves and the ‘774 Patent specification, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand the phrase record/playback device to be limited to a dictation device.
15 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
13
Jul 23, 2011 12:21PM
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply