Difference between revisions of "EB: TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111 (2001)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==Situation== *TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement **At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at smal...")
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
**Is this new matter, or simply a clarification of original claims?
 
**Is this new matter, or simply a clarification of original claims?
 
**Appellate court says that there is an "issue of fact" as to whether new matter was added - so they remand back to the trial court
 
**Appellate court says that there is an "issue of fact" as to whether new matter was added - so they remand back to the trial court
 +
 +
*Next issue of case is "between" v. "adjacent to" location of the spring
 +
**Patent was "lacking in any description of an embodiment in which the spring is located between the casing shoulders" - his disclose of "spring located...adjacent to said springs" is way to vague to constitute sufficient disclosure.
 +
**Thus, claim 2 was rejected based on failing to meet requirements of Section 112.
 +
**Note: patent was written in vague terms so as to avoid conflict with Warth prior art patent.

Revision as of 12:17, 13 April 2011

Situation

  • TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement
    • At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at small clearance position, but when the load is small (not in operation) the spring depresses and the device shifts to a large clearance position, eliminating any rubbing damage problem

Issue

  • TurboCare originally claimed "flat, s-shaped springs" but stated that "a considerable variety of springs can be employed" - he amends this during prosecution to say that "flat springs and others can be employed," because GE's machines used flat springs.
    • Is this new matter, or simply a clarification of original claims?
    • Appellate court says that there is an "issue of fact" as to whether new matter was added - so they remand back to the trial court
  • Next issue of case is "between" v. "adjacent to" location of the spring
    • Patent was "lacking in any description of an embodiment in which the spring is located between the casing shoulders" - his disclose of "spring located...adjacent to said springs" is way to vague to constitute sufficient disclosure.
    • Thus, claim 2 was rejected based on failing to meet requirements of Section 112.
    • Note: patent was written in vague terms so as to avoid conflict with Warth prior art patent.