====== Markman Hearing ======

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)

Vorprozessuale Anhörung zur Auslegung eines Patentanspruchs.

==== CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ====

Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 391. 

In construing the claims of a patent, the words comprising the claims "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.((Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc)))

Accordingly, courts must determine the meaning of claim terms in light of the resources a person with such skill would review to understand the patented technology.((See id. at 1313 (quoting Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.Cir.1998)) ))

First, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. If the specification reveals a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, the inventor's lexicography governs. Likewise, if the specification reveals an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor, the inventor's intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.

In addition to the specification, courts must examine the patent's prosecution history-that is, the complete
record of the proceedings before the PTO and including the prior art cited during the examination of the
patent. Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and
the inventor understood the patent. In particular, courts must look to the prosecution history to
determine "whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope
narrower than it would otherwise be.

Where the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.((Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2003) ))

Finally, in addition to evidence intrinsic to the patent at issue and its prosecution history, courts may look to
"extrinsic evidence, which 'consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including
expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.((Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting
Markman, 517 U.S. at 980) ))

In general, extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.(( Id. at 1318))