Cambridge Wire Cloth Co. v. Laitram Corp.

Parentheticals

• “This court has cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.”

  Transmatic, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Gulton Industries, Inc.

• “References to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations.”

  Inverness Medical Switzerland Gmbh and Unipath Diagnostics, Inc. v. Warner Lambert Company, (Now Known as Pfizer Inc.)

• “[T]he district court properly interpreted the claim in light of the prosecution history in the first trial, defining ‘slightly greater’ spacing in terms of its purpose____”

  CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Custom Optical Frames, Inc.

• “inefficient infringement is still infringement”

  Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.