Kemnetz: Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Petitioner Brief Debate: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Narrow doctrine of equivalence: | Narrow doctrine of equivalence: | ||
''' | # '''Claim language matters''' | ||
# 6-9pH, ours worked when theirs wouldn't (under 6 pH) | # 6-9pH, ours worked when theirs wouldn't (under 6 pH) | ||
# Don't get rid of the doctrine, but element-by-element application will narrow the effects. | # Don't get rid of the doctrine, but element-by-element application will narrow the effects. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
# Doctrine not explicitly removed --> keep traditional form | # Doctrine not explicitly removed --> keep traditional form | ||
# Needs to be element-by-element analysis, keep it to a case-by-case basis, factual analysis | # Needs to be element-by-element analysis, keep it to a case-by-case basis, factual analysis | ||
''' | # '''Not growing claims (unbounded claims), but are the differences insubstantial?''' | ||
## Are the property boundaries off by an inch? or half of the yard?''' | ## '''Are the property boundaries off by an inch? or half of the yard?''' | ||
Latest revision as of 16:36, 30 March 2011
Pro-Petitioner Brief Side
Narrow doctrine of equivalence:
- Claim language matters
- 6-9pH, ours worked when theirs wouldn't (under 6 pH)
- Don't get rid of the doctrine, but element-by-element application will narrow the effects.
Pro-Respondent Brief Side
Statutory interpretation:
- Doctrine not explicitly removed --> keep traditional form
- Needs to be element-by-element analysis, keep it to a case-by-case basis, factual analysis
- Not growing claims (unbounded claims), but are the differences insubstantial?
- Are the property boundaries off by an inch? or half of the yard?
