tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post6431534012572887795..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Does submitting a product brochure risk prosecution history estoppel?Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-51147263870436108182010-03-29T10:56:46.642-04:002010-03-29T10:56:46.642-04:00My gut says that Yes, such a statement further red...My gut says that Yes, such a statement further reduces the risk of claim limitations being imported from the brochure. <br /><br />Don't know of any case law on point. There are plenty of Fed. Cir. cases where patentee referred to "the invention" in the *specification*, and that was a factor in narrowing the claims. Here, we're talking about referring to "the invention" versus "embodiments" while arguing. Personally, I consistently refer to "claim X" in my arguments, rather than using "invention" or "embodiments". <br /><br />But if you're going to refer to something other than claims in your argument, I think "embodiment" is better than "invention".Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-60333192063261208112010-03-29T04:33:49.861-04:002010-03-29T04:33:49.861-04:00Would you be less worried if the product brochure ...Would you be less worried if the product brochure submission were accompanied by a statement that the product described therein "is one example embodiment of the invention" or "is a non-limiting embodiment of the invention"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com