In Re David C. Paulsen

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “lexicographic sources” supported interpretation used by United States Board of Patent Appeals
• stating that court must determine whether inventors intended the preamble to represent additional structural limitations or “mere introductory language”
• finding that hinges, latches, and springs for piano lids, furniture cabinets, and audio cassette holders were relevant prior art for patentee’s hinge and latch mechanism for connecting laptop computer’s screen to rest of computer
• hinges on audio cassette holders and piano lids were pertinent to problem of how to hinge laptop computer screens
• hinges on audio cassette holders and piano lids were pertinent to problem of how to hinge laptop computer screens
• noting “it is entirely proper to use the specification to interpret what the patentee meant by a word or phrase in the claim,” which is distinct from “adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).