With respect to that issue, the court again found that Dr. Greenberg had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact, principally because in the court's view Dr. Dyro's evidence was insufficient to raise a triable factual question of equivalency. Congress enacted paragraph six, originally paragraph three, to overrule that holding. See Valmont Indus. The district court gave two principal reasons to support its ruling. We disagree with the district court's conclusions.
Many devices take their names from the functions they perform.
A close reading of the specification reveals, however, that the term is used in that portion of the patent simply as a shorthand way of referring to each of the key structural elements of the invention. The question then is whether, in the selection of claim language, the patentee must be taken to have exercised that option. Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal. Case in RTF Format Return to Federal Circuit homepage.