Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, while there is a presumption that a claim term will be construed consistently when used throughout the claims, there is no requirement that a claim term be construed uniformly, particularly if it would lead to a “nonsensical reading”
• explaining that “apparatus claims are not necessarily indefinite for using' functional language”
• explaining that both “the” and “said” invoke antecedents, but the “mere use of a term with an antecedent does not require that both terms have the same meaning”
• noting “the well-settled rule that claims are not necessarily invalid for a lack of 16 antecedent basis”
• “[the claim] is clearly limited to a pipelined processor possessing the recited structure and capable of performing the recited functions”
• \Functional language may also be employed to limit the claims without using the means-plus-function format.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).