proposition that claim interpretation excluding the preferred
embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
persuasive evidentiary support (Paper 55 at 6).
Bouzida did not, in its preliminary motion 1, argue that the
embodiment in Beamer’s patent that discloses a pattern of louvers
having two different angles was a preferred embodiment. Nor did
Bouzida, in its preliminary motion 1, direct us to a particular
passage in the Beamer patent that disclosed that the two angled
louver arrangement was the preferred embodiment, or was in any
way preferable over the at least three angled louver
arrangements. Bouzida has failed to direct us to where in the
Beamer specification it is stated that, or even to explain why, a
two angled louver arrangement is the preferred embodiment.
Bouzida further argues that the panel erred in reading
Beamer claim 1 narrowly to exclude the two angled embodiments,
since the superlative form of a word is commonly used instead of
the comparative form when comparing two items (Paper 55 at 7).
Apparently, Bouzida is arguing that it is probable that the
drafter of the Beamer claims used the superlative form of the
word “shallow” when he/she really meant to use the comparative
form of the word. Bouzida directs us to evidence presented in
support of Beamer’s opposition to Bouzida preliminary motion 1.
According to the Penguin Dictionary of American Usage and Style,
it is often the case that the superlative form of a word is used
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007