Law Commons^™

The Interpretation Of Means Expressions During Prosecution, R. Carl Moy

Faculty Scholarship

This article briefly explains how the scope of a claim including a means expression is determined both under the PTO view and a strict application of the statutory language. The lack of consensus and current state of the law in the area are illustrated through an analysis of several recent decisions of the Federal Circuit. The policies underlying the PTO and statutory methods of interpreting means expressions during prosecution are examined in an effort to demonstrate that the statutory method more effectively furthers the policies underlying the patent system.

Law And Fact In Patent Litigation: Form Versus Function, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Recently, the Supreme Court sent Dennison Mfg. v. Panduit Corp. back to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It remanded with explicit directions that the lower court consider the extent to which Rule 52(a) governs appellate review of determinations of obviousness.

It is by no means certain that obviousness determinations should be treated as questions of law. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that courts seek to review findings of obviousness (or nonobviousness) more intensely than would be appropriate under the "clearly erroneous" or "substantial evidence" standards. If the courts are inclined to persist in more intense review …