In Re American Academy of Science Tech Center

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the Board’s decision to discount expert declaration concerning how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms where the declaration “did not constitute persuasive evidence to support his conclusions”
• finding descriptions of the deficiencies of using mainframe computers did not exclude mainframes from the term “user computer” because the specification as a whole did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter
• “Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justi- fied.’” (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984))
• “[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corrobo- ration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”
• “[A] patentee ‘may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.’ ”
• “We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment de- scribed, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).