<commit_before>
var myFlashcards = [     {question:"claims that refer to other claims not necessarily dependent
“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/08/gillis.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gillis</b></span></a>‘},{question:”when evidence allows reasonable conclusion claimed feature present in prior art, must prove not necessarily or inherently present“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/08/crish-spada-best.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>crish, spada, best</b></span></a>‘},{question:”
process comprising steps or elements (a) - (d), (a) defined by ‘consisting of’ did not include other steps or elements“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/crish-berenter-mannesmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>berenter, mannesmann</b></span></a>‘},{question:”where claim includes ‘at least a portion’, ‘consists’ held to limit only the ‘portion’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/crish-berenter-mannesmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>crish</b></span></a>‘},{question:”adverbs in wherein or whereby clauses merely laudatory“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/minton-texas-instruments.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>minton, texas instruments</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI can't conflict with meaning given to identical term in other patents from analogous art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/cortright.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>cortright</b></span></a>‘},{question:”old product not patentable even if made by new process“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/amgen-general-electric-thorpe.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>amgen, general electric, Thorpe</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claims must be interpreted in light of spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/icon-morris.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ICON, morris</b></span></a>‘},{question:”interpret recitation as broadly as the ordinary usage of the language and disclosure of spec allow“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Phillips</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI doesn't include legally incorrect interpretation, only an expedient not a rule“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/skvorecz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>skvorecz</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inherent characteristic must necessarily flow from teachings of prior art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/levy.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>levy</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inherent anticipation means necessarily present not probably present in prior art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/trintec-robertson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>trintec, robertson</b></span></a>‘},{question:”'whereby' clause cannot be ignored to change substance of invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/11/hoffer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>hoffer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim construction cannot be unreasonably broad so as to render phrases in claim superfluous“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/11/bicon-danly-stumbo.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>bicon, danly, stumbo</b></span></a>‘},{question:”different terms in claim reflect differentiation in meaning of those terms“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/11/innova-johnson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>innova</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘ordinary’ and ‘customary’ meaning of claim terms comes from use in written description and by POSITA“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/ferguson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ferguson</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘integral’ may cover more than a one-piece, unitary construction“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/morris-kohno-dike-larson-clark-advanced.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b><NAME>, dike, larson, clark, advanced cardiovascular</b></span></a>‘},{question:”must functionally affect the operation of the memory or processor (if not then non-functional descriptive material)“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/lowry-bernhart-king.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>lowry, bernhart, king</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘to receive’ is merely intended use and does not limit the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer" )</b></span></a>‘},{question:”apparatus claims patentability is shown in the structure not ‘use, function, or result thereof’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/gardiner-schreiber.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gardiner, schreiber" )</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI must be consistent with the specification“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/translogic-hyatt.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>translogic, hyatt</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘directly coupled’ means ‘joined by immediate contact’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/rexnord-cvi.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>rexnord, cvi</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘wherein’ ‘whereby’ ‘thereby’ clause given patentable weight depends on case specific facts“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/griffin-hoffer-minton.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>griffin, hoffer, minton</b></span></a>‘},{question:”patented claims evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/orthokinetics-morris-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Morris</b></span></a>‘},{question:”uncertainties of claim scope removed as much as possible during administrative process“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/orthokinetics-morris-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>zletz</b></span></a>‘},{question:”rules of grammar apply: referential words and phrases refer solely to last antecedent“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/anhydrides.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>anhydrides</b></span></a>‘},{question:”given labels function distinction ‘discernable only to the human mind’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/gulack-bernhart-lowry-xiao-king-ngai.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai</b></span></a>‘},{question:”negative limitations OK but spec must describe a reason to exclude the relevant function“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/animal-santarus.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>animal, santarus</b></span></a>‘},{question:”can't import limitations from spec, claims not limited to specific embodiment, even if only one“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/deere-innova-hewlett-packard-roberts.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>deere, innova</b></a>‘},{question:”system claim covers what system is, not what it does“,answer:’<a href="http://www.flippity.net/hewlett-packard,%20robertshtml" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>hewlett-packard, roberts</b></a>‘},{question:”can't construe non-functional terms to make infringement turn on their function“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/deere-innova-hewlett-packard-roberts.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>paragon</b></a>‘},{question:”examiner can't use extrinsic evidence to vary, expand, or limit claim language from how spec defines“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/bell-atlantic.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>bell atlantic</b></a>‘},{question:”can't import limitations from embodiment in spec into a claim that are not part of the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/electromed-superguide-phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>electromed, superguide</b></span></a>‘},{question:”can't confine claim to embodiments in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/electromed-superguide-phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>phillips</b></span> </a>‘},{question:”intended use will not limit scope of claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/boehringer-thorner-vivid.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”only need to construe claim terms in controvesy, and only to extent to resolve it“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/boehringer-thorner-vivid.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>vivid</b></span></a>‘},{question:”preamble limiting when claim drafter uses both it and body of claim to define subject matter“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/allen-engg-bell-comm-jacoby.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>allen eng, bell comm</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim interpretation cannot exclude example disclosed in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/oatey-verizon.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>oatey, verizon</b></span></a>‘},{question:”use spec to understand claim language but not to import limitation not part of claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/superguide.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>superguide</b></span></a>‘},{question:”no legally recognizable ‘gist’ to the invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/gore.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>gore</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Arguments in support of patentability must be based on claim limitations.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/self-thrift.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>self</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inventor must set out uncommon definition in disclosure to give POSITA notice“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/paulsen.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>paulsen</b></span></a>‘},{question:”in considering disclosure, proper for POSITA to take into account inferences drawn therefrom“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/preda.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>preda</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘comprising’ and ‘including’ are synonymous“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/mars.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>mars</b></span></a>‘},{question:”modifiers are presumed to modify the antecedent noun“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/htc.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>HTC</b></span></a>‘},{question:”an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”plain and ordinary meaning of ‘determing’ is prompting, checking“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/eplus.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>eplus</b></span></a>‘},{question:”substantially means considerable in . . . extent, largely but not wholly that which is specified“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/york-prod.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>york prod.</b></span></a>‘},{question:”A rejection should not be based on ‘speculations and assumptions.’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/steele.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>steele</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/bose.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>bose</b></span></a>‘},{question:”if dependent claim adds particular limitation presumption is the limitation not in the independent claim.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/bancorp-liebel-flarsheim.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>bancorp</b></a>‘},{question:”doctrine of claim differentiation strong where dependent claim feature read into independent claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/bancorp-liebel-flarsheim.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>liebel-flarsheim</b></a>‘},{question:”can't rewrite claims to preserve validity, dependent claim is invalid if fails to specify further limitation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/pfizer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>pfizer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”to act as own lexicographer must clearly express intent to redefine claim term“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/thorner-ccs-helmsderfer-butamax.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>thorner, CCS, helmsderfer, butamax</b></a>‘},{question:”the use of different terms in the claims connotes different meanings. http://t.co/QyYivpGBdu“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/chicago-bd.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>chicago bd,, CAE</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Nothing requires a finder of fact to credit inadequately explained testimony.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/rohm-and-haas.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>rohm and hass</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/suitco-surface.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>suitco</b></span></a>‘},{question:”dependent claims not argued separately stand or fall with claims from which they depend http://t.co/QyYivpGBdu“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/king-sernaker.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>king, sernaker</b></a>‘},{question:”'a' or 'an' means 'one or more' unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/scanner-kcj.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>scanner, KCJ</b></span></a>‘},{question:”intended use preamble of no significance if body of claim fully sets forth complete invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/pitney-bowes.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>pitney bowes</b></a>‘},{question:”expert opinion probative value 1. interest in outcome 2. factual support 3. strength of opposing view“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/american-calcar-ashland-oil.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ashland oil</b></span></a>‘},{question:”statement in a spec that claim term ‘refers to’ something can serve as a limitation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/06/rambus-abbott-diabetes.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>rambus, abbott diabetes</b></span></a>‘},{question:”statements do not become facts merely because they are set forth in declarations“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/06/velander-ashland-oil.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>velander, ashland oil</b></span></a>‘},{question:”The phrase ‘to form’ is not intrinsically limiting.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/06/cordis.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>cordis</b></span></a>‘},{question:”negative limitations in claims need express disclaimer or independent lexicography in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/santarus-omega.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>santarus, omega</b></span></a>‘},{question:”applicant &#39;s remarks submitted with an [IDS] can be the basis for limiting claim scope.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/uship-ekchian.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>uship, ekchian</b></span></a>‘},{question:”non-functional descriptive material is given no patentable weight“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/gulack-bernhart-lowry-xiao.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao</b></span></a>‘},{question:”substantially flattened can be curved, but not at a 90 degree angle“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/playtex-robertson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>playtex</b></span></a>‘},{question:”absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/porter-caveney.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>porter</b></span></a>‘},{question:”comprising a means one or more, unless claim language indicates a means one and only one“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/kcj-harari.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>KCJ, harari</b></span></a>‘},{question:”A claim construction that gives meaning to all terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/merck.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>merck</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI must be consistent with one POSITA would reach“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/cortright-intergraph-ormco-gould.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>cortright</b></span></a>‘},{question:”ordinary meaning of claim term is meaning POSITA would have at time of invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/phillips-bristol-myers-continental-can.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Phillips</b></span></a>‘},{question:”different words in separate claims presumed different meaning, esp. in dependent claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/keller-datamize-musgrave-nystrom.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace</b></span></a>‘},{question:”use of BRI in construing conditional steps in a method claim in accord with Fed Cir“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/applied-materials-aller-cybersettle.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>cybersettle</b></span></a>‘},{question:”informational content of non-functional descriptive material not entitled to weight in patentability analysis“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/lowry.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>lowry</b></span></a>‘},{question:”notice of facts beyond the record capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration so as to defy dispute“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/ahlert-best-geisler.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ahlert</b></span></a>‘},{question:”if functional limitation may be inherent applicant must rebut with factual evidence“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/ahlert-best-geisler.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>best, geisler</b></span></a>‘},{question:”We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/oatey.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>oatey</b></span></a>‘},{question:”when whereby clause states a condition material to patentability, it cannot be ignored“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/perricone-minton-hoffer-griffin.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>minton, hoffer, griffin</b></span></a>‘},{question:”examiner &#39;s findings not challenged accepted as facts.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/kunzmann-kollman-lebounty-dwight-lloyd.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>kunzmann</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/schreiber-hewlett-packard-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>hewlett-packard</b></span></a>‘},{question:”an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/schreiber-hewlett-packard-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”arguments not based on limitations appearing in the claims fail from the outset.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/self.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>self</b></span></a>‘},{question:”’a' means 'one or more' unless claim language and spec indicate 'a' means 'one and only one'“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/vehicular-kcj-harari-fessmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>KCJ, harari</b></span></a>‘},{question:”comprising means I claim at least what follows and potentially more“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/vehicular-kcj-harari-fessmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>vehicular</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/de-blauwe.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>de blauwe</b></span></a>‘},{question:”if spec assigns or suggests to POSITA scope or definition of claim term not OK to consult dictionary“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/comaper.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>comaper</b></span></a>‘},{question:”a clause that merely states the result of a limitation adds nothing to patentability of a claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/11/texas-instruments.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>texas instruments</b></span></a>‘},{question:”nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/ngai-gulack-lowry-curry-mathias.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gulack, ngai</b></span></a>‘},{question:”computer-related data structures not providing increased efficiency in computer operations nonfunctional descr. mat.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/ngai-gulack-lowry-curry-mathias.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>lowry, curry, mathias</b></span></a>‘},{question:”unless acting as lexicographer, limitations appearing in spec not read into claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/e-pass.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>e-pass</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim terms take on plain, ordinary and accustomed meaning unless explicit special definition clearly set forth“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/prima-tek.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>prima tek</b></span></a>‘},{question:”no picking and choosing in anticipation rejection“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/netmoneyin-arkley.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Arkley</b></span></a>‘},{question:”is claim directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea, do elements of claim transform nature into patent-eligible application“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/alice-mayo-mullin-herbert.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>alice, mayo</b></span></a>‘},{question:”dictionary def ok as long as doesn't contradict def in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/phillips-vitronics.html" phillips="" style="color: #3366ff;" vitronics=""><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Phillips, vitronics</b></span></a>‘},{question:”words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive terms ‘commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter; ‘Substantially’ is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/playtex-york-prod.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Playtex, york prod.</b></span></a>‘},{question:”order of steps doesn't matter unless new or unexpected results“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/baker-hughes-hampel-burhans.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>hampel, burhans</b></span></a>‘},{question:”for 103 inherent only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/par-pharmaceutical-oelrich.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>par pharmaceutical, oelrich</b></span></a>‘},{question:”words of claim given plain meaning unless inconsistent with spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/bond-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>zletz</b></span></a>‘},{question:”during examination claims given BRI and read as POSITA would in light of spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/bond-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>bond</b></span></a>‘},{question:”absent express def in spec, tho applicant has own interpretation PTO can point to other sources that support it &#39;s own interpretation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/morris-wright.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>morris</b></span></a>‘},{question:”PTAB &#39;s obligation to determine meaning of claims is analogous to that of district and appeals court judges“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/exxon-chem-teva-markman-abbott-diabetes.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>exxon chem, teva, markman, abbott diabetes</b></span></a>‘},{question:”102 dispositive ques is wld POSITA reasonably understand/infer from single prior art every claim limitation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/akamai-giannelli.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>akamai</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/03/otto-young.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>otto, young</b></span></a>‘},{question:”plain meaning unless inconsistent and terms such as ‘sintered’ can be structural limitations.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/03/zletz-garnero.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>zletz, garnero</b></span></a>‘},{question:”102 each and every limitation of claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/03/buszard-paulsen-tempo-lighting-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b><NAME></b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms in a claim preferred“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/04/merck-dulberg.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>merck</b></span></a>‘},{question:”configured to is more akin to ‘designed to’ and should not be contrued too broadly as ‘capable of’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/aspex.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>aspex</b></span></a>‘},{question:”patentability of an apparatus claim depends on claimed structure, not use or purpose of that structure.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/chu-catalina-rice.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>catalina</b></span></a>‘},{question:”applicant can correct errors in claim language and adjust claim scope by amending claims in pros so BRI“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/yamamoto.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>yamamoto</b></span></a>‘},{question:”decision maker must construe claims, determine differences, and what makes claims patentably distinct“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/general-foods-vogel-eli-lilly-aldrich.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>eli lilly</b></span></a>‘},{question:”whereby clause merely states the result of the limitation, adds nothing to patentability“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/texas-instruments-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>texas instruments</b></span></a>‘},{question:”intended use defines context in which invention operates, doesn't limit scope of claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/texas-instruments-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”fact spec describes only single embodiment insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/howmedica-phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>howmedica, Phillips</b></span></a>‘},{question:”language properly construed to functionally limit rather than describe intended use is proper“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/oda-vizio.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>vizio</b></span></a>'}
     ];<commit_msg>Update claimconstruction2.js<commit_after>
var myFlashcards = [     {question:"claims that refer to other claims not necessarily dependent“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/08/gillis.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gillis</b></span></a>‘},{question:”when evidence allows reasonable conclusion claimed feature present in prior art, must prove not necessarily or inherently present“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/08/crish-spada-best.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>crish, spada, best</b></span></a>‘},{question:”process comprising steps or elements (a) - (d), (a) defined by ‘consisting of’ did not include other steps or elements“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/crish-berenter-mannesmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>berenter, mannesmann</b></span></a>‘},{question:”where claim includes ‘at least a portion’, ‘consists’ held to limit only the ‘portion’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/crish-berenter-mannesmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>crish</b></span></a>‘},{question:”adverbs in wherein or whereby clauses merely laudatory“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/minton-texas-instruments.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>minton, texas instruments</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI can't conflict with meaning given to identical term in other patents from analogous art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/cortright.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>cortright</b></span></a>‘},{question:”old product not patentable even if made by new process“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/09/amgen-general-electric-thorpe.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>amgen, general electric, Thorpe</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claims must be interpreted in light of spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/icon-morris.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ICON, morris</b></span></a>‘},{question:”interpret recitation as broadly as the ordinary usage of the language and disclosure of spec allow“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Phillips</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI doesn't include legally incorrect interpretation, only an expedient not a rule“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/skvorecz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>skvorecz</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inherent characteristic must necessarily flow from teachings of prior art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/levy.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>levy</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inherent anticipation means necessarily present not probably present in prior art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/10/trintec-robertson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>trintec, robertson</b></span></a>‘},{question:”'whereby' clause cannot be ignored to change substance of invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/11/hoffer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>hoffer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim construction cannot be unreasonably broad so as to render phrases in claim superfluous“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/11/bicon-danly-stumbo.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>bicon, danly, stumbo</b></span></a>‘},{question:”different terms in claim reflect differentiation in meaning of those terms“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/11/innova-johnson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>innova</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘ordinary’ and ‘customary’ meaning of claim terms comes from use in written description and by POSITA“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/ferguson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ferguson</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘integral’ may cover more than a one-piece, unitary construction“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/morris-kohno-dike-larson-clark-advanced.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Morris, kohno, dike, larson, clark, advanced cardiovascular</b></span></a>‘},{question:”must functionally affect the operation of the memory or processor (if not then non-functional descriptive material)“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/lowry-bernhart-king.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>lowry, bernhart, king</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘to receive’ is merely intended use and does not limit the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer" )</b></span></a>‘},{question:”apparatus claims patentability is shown in the structure not ‘use, function, or result thereof’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/gardiner-schreiber.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gardiner, schreiber" )</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI must be consistent with the specification“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2013/12/translogic-hyatt.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>translogic, hyatt</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘directly coupled’ means ‘joined by immediate contact’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/rexnord-cvi.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>rexnord, cvi</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘wherein’ ‘whereby’ ‘thereby’ clause given patentable weight depends on case specific facts“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/griffin-hoffer-minton.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>griffin, hoffer, minton</b></span></a>‘},{question:”patented claims evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/orthokinetics-morris-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Morris</b></span></a>‘},{question:”uncertainties of claim scope removed as much as possible during administrative process“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/orthokinetics-morris-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>zletz</b></span></a>‘},{question:”rules of grammar apply: referential words and phrases refer solely to last antecedent“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/anhydrides.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>anhydrides</b></span></a>‘},{question:”given labels function distinction ‘discernable only to the human mind’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/gulack-bernhart-lowry-xiao-king-ngai.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai</b></span></a>‘},{question:”negative limitations OK but spec must describe a reason to exclude the relevant function“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/animal-santarus.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>animal, santarus</b></span></a>‘},{question:”can't import limitations from spec, claims not limited to specific embodiment, even if only one“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/deere-innova-hewlett-packard-roberts.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>deere, innova</b></a>‘},{question:”system claim covers what system is, not what it does“,answer:’<a href="http://www.flippity.net/hewlett-packard,%20robertshtml" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>hewlett-packard, roberts</b></a>‘},{question:”can't construe non-functional terms to make infringement turn on their function“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/01/deere-innova-hewlett-packard-roberts.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>paragon</b></a>‘},{question:”examiner can't use extrinsic evidence to vary, expand, or limit claim language from how spec defines“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/bell-atlantic.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>bell atlantic</b></a>‘},{question:”can't import limitations from embodiment in spec into a claim that are not part of the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/electromed-superguide-phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>electromed, superguide</b></span></a>‘},{question:”can't confine claim to embodiments in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/electromed-superguide-phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>phillips</b></span> </a>‘},{question:”intended use will not limit scope of claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/boehringer-thorner-vivid.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”only need to construe claim terms in controvesy, and only to extent to resolve it“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/boehringer-thorner-vivid.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>vivid</b></span></a>‘},{question:”preamble limiting when claim drafter uses both it and body of claim to define subject matter“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/02/allen-engg-bell-comm-jacoby.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>allen eng, bell comm</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim interpretation cannot exclude example disclosed in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/oatey-verizon.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>oatey, verizon</b></span></a>‘},{question:”use spec to understand claim language but not to import limitation not part of claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/superguide.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>superguide</b></span></a>‘},{question:”no legally recognizable ‘gist’ to the invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/gore.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>gore</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Arguments in support of patentability must be based on claim limitations.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/self-thrift.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>self</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inventor must set out uncommon definition in disclosure to give POSITA notice“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/paulsen.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>paulsen</b></span></a>‘},{question:”in considering disclosure, proper for POSITA to take into account inferences drawn therefrom“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/03/preda.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>preda</b></span></a>‘},{question:”‘comprising’ and ‘including’ are synonymous“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/mars.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>mars</b></span></a>‘},{question:”modifiers are presumed to modify the antecedent noun“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/htc.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>HTC</b></span></a>‘},{question:”an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”plain and ordinary meaning of ‘determing’ is prompting, checking“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/eplus.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>eplus</b></span></a>‘},{question:”substantially means considerable in . . . extent, largely but not wholly that which is specified“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/york-prod.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>york prod.</b></span></a>‘},{question:”A rejection should not be based on ‘speculations and assumptions.’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/steele.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>steele</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/bose.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>bose</b></span></a>‘},{question:”if dependent claim adds particular limitation presumption is the limitation not in the independent claim.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/bancorp-liebel-flarsheim.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>bancorp</b></a>‘},{question:”doctrine of claim differentiation strong where dependent claim feature read into independent claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/04/bancorp-liebel-flarsheim.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>liebel-flarsheim</b></a>‘},{question:”can't rewrite claims to preserve validity, dependent claim is invalid if fails to specify further limitation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/pfizer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>pfizer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”to act as own lexicographer must clearly express intent to redefine claim term“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/thorner-ccs-helmsderfer-butamax.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>thorner, CCS, helmsderfer, butamax</b></a>‘},{question:”the use of different terms in the claims connotes different meanings. http://t.co/QyYivpGBdu“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/chicago-bd.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>chicago bd,, CAE</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Nothing requires a finder of fact to credit inadequately explained testimony.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/rohm-and-haas.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>rohm and hass</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/suitco-surface.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>suitco</b></span></a>‘},{question:”dependent claims not argued separately stand or fall with claims from which they depend http://t.co/QyYivpGBdu“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/king-sernaker.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>king, sernaker</b></a>‘},{question:”'a' or 'an' means 'one or more' unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/scanner-kcj.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>scanner, KCJ</b></span></a>‘},{question:”intended use preamble of no significance if body of claim fully sets forth complete invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/pitney-bowes.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>pitney bowes</b></a>‘},{question:”expert opinion probative value 1. interest in outcome 2. factual support 3. strength of opposing view“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/05/american-calcar-ashland-oil.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ashland oil</b></span></a>‘},{question:”statement in a spec that claim term ‘refers to’ something can serve as a limitation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/06/rambus-abbott-diabetes.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>rambus, abbott diabetes</b></span></a>‘},{question:”statements do not become facts merely because they are set forth in declarations“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/06/velander-ashland-oil.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>velander, ashland oil</b></span></a>‘},{question:”The phrase ‘to form’ is not intrinsically limiting.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/06/cordis.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>cordis</b></span></a>‘},{question:”negative limitations in claims need express disclaimer or independent lexicography in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/santarus-omega.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>santarus, omega</b></span></a>‘},{question:”applicant &#39;s remarks submitted with an [IDS] can be the basis for limiting claim scope.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/uship-ekchian.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>uship, ekchian</b></span></a>‘},{question:”non-functional descriptive material is given no patentable weight“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/gulack-bernhart-lowry-xiao.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao</b></span></a>‘},{question:”substantially flattened can be curved, but not at a 90 degree angle“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/playtex-robertson.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>playtex</b></span></a>‘},{question:”absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/07/porter-caveney.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>porter</b></span></a>‘},{question:”comprising a means one or more, unless claim language indicates a means one and only one“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/kcj-harari.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>KCJ, harari</b></span></a>‘},{question:”A claim construction that gives meaning to all terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/merck.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>merck</b></span></a>‘},{question:”BRI must be consistent with one POSITA would reach“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/cortright-intergraph-ormco-gould.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>cortright</b></span></a>‘},{question:”ordinary meaning of claim term is meaning POSITA would have at time of invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/phillips-bristol-myers-continental-can.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Phillips</b></span></a>‘},{question:”different words in separate claims presumed different meaning, esp. in dependent claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/keller-datamize-musgrave-nystrom.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b><NAME>, sunrace</b></span></a>‘},{question:”use of BRI in construing conditional steps in a method claim in accord with Fed Cir“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/08/applied-materials-aller-cybersettle.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>cybersettle</b></span></a>‘},{question:”informational content of non-functional descriptive material not entitled to weight in patentability analysis“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/lowry.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>lowry</b></span></a>‘},{question:”notice of facts beyond the record capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration so as to defy dispute“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/ahlert-best-geisler.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>ahlert</b></span></a>‘},{question:”if functional limitation may be inherent applicant must rebut with factual evidence“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/ahlert-best-geisler.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>best, geisler</b></span></a>‘},{question:”We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/oatey.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>oatey</b></span></a>‘},{question:”when whereby clause states a condition material to patentability, it cannot be ignored“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/perricone-minton-hoffer-griffin.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>minton, hoffer, griffin</b></span></a>‘},{question:”examiner &#39;s findings not challenged accepted as facts.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/kunzmann-kollman-lebounty-dwight-lloyd.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>kunzmann</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/schreiber-hewlett-packard-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>hewlett-packard</b></span></a>‘},{question:”an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/09/schreiber-hewlett-packard-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”arguments not based on limitations appearing in the claims fail from the outset.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/self.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>self</b></span></a>‘},{question:”’a' means 'one or more' unless claim language and spec indicate 'a' means 'one and only one'“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/vehicular-kcj-harari-fessmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>KCJ, harari</b></span></a>‘},{question:”comprising means I claim at least what follows and potentially more“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/vehicular-kcj-harari-fessmann.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>vehicular</b></span></a>‘},{question:”Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/de-blauwe.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>de blauwe</b></span></a>‘},{question:”if spec assigns or suggests to POSITA scope or definition of claim term not OK to consult dictionary“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/10/comaper.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>comaper</b></span></a>‘},{question:”a clause that merely states the result of a limitation adds nothing to patentability of a claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/11/texas-instruments.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>texas instruments</b></span></a>‘},{question:”nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/ngai-gulack-lowry-curry-mathias.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>gulack, ngai</b></span></a>‘},{question:”computer-related data structures not providing increased efficiency in computer operations nonfunctional descr. mat.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/ngai-gulack-lowry-curry-mathias.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>lowry, curry, mathias</b></span></a>‘},{question:”unless acting as lexicographer, limitations appearing in spec not read into claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/e-pass.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>e-pass</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim terms take on plain, ordinary and accustomed meaning unless explicit special definition clearly set forth“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2014/12/prima-tek.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>prima tek</b></span></a>‘},{question:”no picking and choosing in anticipation rejection“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/netmoneyin-arkley.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Arkley</b></span></a>‘},{question:”is claim directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea, do elements of claim transform nature into patent-eligible application“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/alice-mayo-mullin-herbert.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>alice, mayo</b></span></a>‘},{question:”dictionary def ok as long as doesn't contradict def in spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/phillips-vitronics.html" phillips="" style="color: #3366ff;" vitronics=""><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Phillips, vitronics</b></span></a>‘},{question:”words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive terms ‘commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter; ‘Substantially’ is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/playtex-york-prod.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>Playtex, york prod.</b></span></a>‘},{question:”order of steps doesn't matter unless new or unexpected results“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/baker-hughes-hampel-burhans.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>hampel, burhans</b></span></a>‘},{question:”for 103 inherent only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/01/par-pharmaceutical-oelrich.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>par pharmaceutical, oelrich</b></span></a>‘},{question:”words of claim given plain meaning unless inconsistent with spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/bond-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>zletz</b></span></a>‘},{question:”during examination claims given BRI and read as POSITA would in light of spec“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/bond-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>bond</b></span></a>‘},{question:”absent express def in spec, tho applicant has own interpretation PTO can point to other sources that support it &#39;s own interpretation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/morris-wright.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>morris</b></span></a>‘},{question:”PTAB &#39;s obligation to determine meaning of claims is analogous to that of district and appeals court judges“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/exxon-chem-teva-markman-abbott-diabetes.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>exxon chem, teva, markman, abbott diabetes</b></span></a>‘},{question:”102 dispositive ques is wld POSITA reasonably understand/infer from single prior art every claim limitation“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/02/akamai-giannelli.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>akamai</b></span></a>‘},{question:”inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/03/otto-young.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>otto, young</b></span></a>‘},{question:”plain meaning unless inconsistent and terms such as ‘sintered’ can be structural limitations.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/03/zletz-garnero.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>zletz, garnero</b></span></a>‘},{question:”102 each and every limitation of claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/03/buszard-paulsen-tempo-lighting-zletz.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>buszard, paulsen</b></span></a>‘},{question:”claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms in a claim preferred“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/04/merck-dulberg.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>merck</b></span></a>‘},{question:”configured to is more akin to ‘designed to’ and should not be contrued too broadly as ‘capable of’“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/aspex.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>aspex</b></span></a>‘},{question:”patentability of an apparatus claim depends on claimed structure, not use or purpose of that structure.“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/chu-catalina-rice.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>catalina</b></span></a>‘},{question:”applicant can correct errors in claim language and adjust claim scope by amending claims in pros so BRI“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/yamamoto.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>yamamoto</b></span></a>‘},{question:”decision maker must construe claims, determine differences, and what makes claims patentably distinct“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/general-foods-vogel-eli-lilly-aldrich.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>eli lilly</b></span></a>‘},{question:”whereby clause merely states the result of the limitation, adds nothing to patentability“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/texas-instruments-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>texas instruments</b></span></a>‘},{question:”intended use defines context in which invention operates, doesn't limit scope of claim“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/texas-instruments-boehringer.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>boehringer</b></span></a>‘},{question:”fact spec describes only single embodiment insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/howmedica-phillips.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><b>howmedica, Phillips</b></span></a>‘},{question:”language properly construed to functionally limit rather than describe intended use is proper“,answer:’<a href="http://www.ptab.us/2015/05/oda-vizio.html" style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>vizio</b></span></a>'}
     ];
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.20680104631481766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05859021045972885, 'mean_word_length': 7.16015625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1362, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1362, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 232, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '653958', 'n_tokens_mistral': 22576, 'n_tokens_neox': 19728, 'n_words': 4158}