IRIDESCENT NETWORKS, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, decided August 12, 2019, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent No. 8,036,119 is directed to guaranteed bandwidth on demand (pages 2-4). Claim 1 recites a request for a “high quality of service connection” (page 4).   In prosecution, Applicant cited to disclosure of 1-300 megabits per second, 10^-5 packet loss and less than 1 second latency in the specification as high quality of service to support the limitation (page 6). The claim language itself is not sufficiently clear to provide guidance (page 9). The specification includes Figure 3 with a box around some but not all application, where the box includes the rate, loss, and latency (pages 9-10). The prosecution history supports using rate, loss, and latency values taught by the specification (page 10). The limitation is more than a requirement that the connection assure a desired level (page 10).   Figure 3 shows an application not in the high quality of service box that still provides greater quality than typical, indicating that high quality is based on the specific values (page 11). The prosecution history is informative for interpretation even without a specific disavowal (page 13). Arguing with respect to enablement informs claim construction (page 14).

Hindsight: Subjective terms should be defined in the specification. Where the subjective is used as a relative term or for comparison, the objective criteria given should be that comparison or relative relationship. If actual numbers or examples are used, then the numbers and examples should be described in a context defined by the relative or comparison with alternatives to indicate breadth.