CAFC: When is trash “in” a trashcan?

BreastPumpPatentCannon Rubber v. The First Years (Fed. Cir. 2005, NONPRECEDENTIAL).

In a claim construction dispute over the term “in,” the CAFC used its trashcan analogy:

As an initial matter, we note that the term “in” is a simple, non-technical term, and that under its ordinary meaning, a “diaphragm disposed in the body” includes diaphragms contained entirely and partially in the body. For example, a trash bag is “in” a trashcan even though a portion of it is hanging outside of the trashcan.

NOTE: It is good that this decision is nonprecedential because it does not follow Phillips v. AWH. Rather, the case merely cites Phillips for the proposition that the construction may depart from the plain meaning of a claim term “when the patentee has acted as a lexicographer or when the patentee has clearly limited the scope of the invention through a disclaimer in the specification or prosecution history.” . . .  

One thought on “CAFC: When is trash “in” a trashcan?

  1. 1

    Entirely in The Body or Partially in The Body?

    Patent Prospector: In The Body
    到底in the body是要entirely in the body or partially in the body即可?
    Cannon Rubber Limited, et al. v. The First Years, Inc.再DC中被法官以參酌說明書中實施例…

Comments are closed.