Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that 26 district court correctly construed the terms “drive bay slot” and “drive bay” differently based on 27 the prosecution history
• explaining that we do not “limit[] claims to a preferred embodiment”
• approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary defi- nition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning
• “Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: ‘(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2
• “[T]his court has repeatedly cautioned against limiting claims to a preferred embodiment.”
• “[I]n de- termining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary defini- tion of the word for guidance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).