In Re Gilbert P. Hyatt

How courts have described this case

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

• noting appellant’s unsuccessful attempt to describe a “processor,” “output signals,” and “input signals” as separate combinable elements
• defining single-means claim as “a claim drafted in ‘means-plus-function’ format yet reciting only a single element instead of a combination”
• invalidating claim as single-means when patentee admitted claim was “not drawn to a combination”
• “Indeed, appellant has admitted that claim 35 is drawn to only a single element ... ”
• “[N]o provision saves a claim drafted in means-plus-function format which is not drawn to a combination, i.e., a single means claim.”
• “A claim must be read in accordance with the precepts of English grammar.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).