Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

Embodiment of figure is within claim scope

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

The case Oatey v. IPS involved a patent based on an application filed by Oatey in 1999 directed to outlet boxes for water for washing machines.

The CAFC cited Phillips (citing Innova/Pure v. Safari, 381 F.3d 1111), went on to
Verizon v. Vonage, 503 F.3d 1295, and concluded:

We conclude that the embodiment in Figure 3 was improperly excluded from the scope of claim 1. See MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting claim construction that would exclude embodiments illustrated in the drawings); Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1353-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (rejecting claim construction that "excluded embodiments disclosed in the specification" including embodiments in the drawings); Vanderlande Industries Nederland BV v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (declining to limit the term "glide surface" to a specific embodiment where the descriptive text includes other embodiments).

An IPS argument on "plain meaning" was rejected.

****In passing there is a plain meaning to "Repo Express" / "ONE STOP SHOPPING for homebuyers and investors" (Coshow Real Estate Group )

CBS national news on 1/30 discussed bus tours in San Diego touring foreclosed properties. "Repo Express." Prof. Frank Alexander of Emory got to make some comments. Hope Now was also mentioned.

Full post as published by IPBiz on January 30, 2008 (boomark / email).