Is the CAFC decision in RUCKUS WIRELESS a gamechanger?
Tony Dutra in the post THE PATENT SPECIFICATION IS THE NAME OF THE GAME NOW argues for a change in focus in "what is important" in the patent application based on the CAFC decision in RUCKUS WIRELESS.
HOWEVER, it is worth reading the dissent of Leonard P. Stark, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The matter of absence of written description arises in the majority opinion:
The canons of claim construction provide additional
reason to limit the scope of the claims to wired communication.
If, after applying all other available tools of claim
construction, a claim is ambiguous, it should be construed
to preserve its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Because
the specification makes no mention of wireless
communications, construing the instant claims to encompass
that subject matter would likely render the claims
invalid for lack of written description. See Gentry Gallery,
Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (holding that a claim “may be no broader than the
supporting disclosure”). The canon favoring constructions
that preserve claim validity therefore counsels against
construing “communications path” to include wireless
But that issue would go away if --“communications
path” -- was found to include wireless communications.
As Judge Stark pointed out, this interpretation was accepted at
one point in the case.
As to "disclaiming" an embodiment, this is generally thought
to require an explicit repudiation, rather than an implicit
surrender through absence of examples (of wireless)