In a case involving technology relating to wiper blades, Judge Robinson recently issued a claim construction order construing the terms set forth below:
– “component”
– “mounted to said concave surface of said support element”
– “mounted directly to the convex surface of said support element”
– “a leading edge face”
– “wherein each crosspiece disposed at the end sections of the two spring stripes is provided with a covering cap”
– “groove-like construction”
– “a wiper blade part”
– “wind deflection strip is disposed between and in contact with each respective end cap and the device piece”
– “base body”
– “bracing itself on the wiper blade”
– “detent shoulder”
– “pointing toward the other end portion”
– “cavities”
– “protrusions protuding;” “a protusion protruding”
– “long sides;” “long sides of the support element”
– “hook legs”
– “detent tooth that protrudes from the long side of the support element”
– “recess”
– “the face of the end of the support element”
– “inside wall”
– “pin passage”
– “tail space”
– “forwardmost free end”
– “rearward of said pin passage and said rivet passage”
– “rail-free hook insertion space”
– “cavity”
– “engagement tab”
– “outward lateral extent”
Interestingly, the court refused to construe the phrase “wherein said leading edge face is disposed on a face of said support element which faces away from the window” because the “phrase is unsupported by the specification and has no apparent plain meaning. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., C.A. No. 08-542-SLR, Memo. Order, at 3 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2010).
Delaware IP Law Blog 