Commonwealth v. Carter, T.

How courts have described this case

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

• “including” and 18 “comprising” have the same meaning namely, that the listed elements are essential but 19 other elements may be added
• adopting construction that excluded all disclosed embodiments because the claims were “susceptible to only one reasonable construction”
• “[W]here we conclude that the claim language is unambiguous, we have con- strued the claims to exclude all disclosed embodiments.”
• “[T]hese statements .. . must be read in the context of its overall argument distinguishing the claimed method from the method disclosed in Busboom.”
• “[T]he arguments made by the applicants during prosecution clearly distinguish the claimed method from that of [the prior art], but do not constrain the definition of [the disputed claim term] as urged by the defendants.”
• “[W]hen the claims are susceptible to only one reasonable construction, we will construe the claims as the patentee drafted them.” (citing Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).