[U.S. Patents] Claim Differentiation = 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
Updated: 12 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: United States
Topics: Claim interpretation
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-04-03 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[U.S. Patents] Claim Differentiation = 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
2024.10 NexStep v. Comcast
Claims 1 and 4 are not construed as the same invention.
2005.07 CAFC en banc Phillips v. AWH Corp.
In claim construction, intrinsic evidence is more reliable than extrinsic evidence.
Dependent claim 2 and independent claim 17 specifically require the baffles to be oriented at an angle to the panel sections and to function to deflect projectiles. The court reasoned against the narrow construction that, if the baffles of claim 1 were inherently angled, other claims specifying that feature would duplicate claim 1.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments