In the Interest of L.A., G.A. III, and M.E.A., Children v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”
• noting that the specification referred to transmitting data over a phone line roughly two dozen times and never suggested transmitting data through the use of a packet switched network
• statement made during prosecution of related patent operated as a disclaimer with respect to a later-issued patent
• “[T]he claims must be must be interpreted in light of the specification, . . . which repeatedly and consistently describes [the systems].”
• “Our broader interpretation of the term ‘headers’ does not exclude the use of the headers disclosed in the preferred embodiment; it simply does not require their use.”
• statements made by the patentee in the prosecution of the patent application as to the scope of the invention may be considered when deciding the meaning of the claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).