Transmatic, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Gulton Industries, 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 the district court erred when it imposed on the claim term “light housing” a configuration disclosed in the preferred embodiment when the claim, itself did not disclose such a configuration
• defining the second step as “the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process”
• objective evidence of nonobviousness includes secondary evidence, such as “failure of others to achieve the patented invention and the commercial success of the patented device”
• “In construing a claim, claim terms are given their ordinary meaning unless examination of the specification, prosecution history, and other claims indicates that the inventor intended otherwise.”
• “[T]he district court erred by importing unnecessary functional limitations into the claim.”
• “[T]he district court erred by importing unnecessary functional limitations into the claim ....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).