In a recent Markman opinion, Judge Farnan construed several terms relating to two patents pertaining to the use of microelectrodes for the rapid determination of the concentration of an analyte in a liquid sample – a process that, as the court noted, is useful for blood sugar analysis in individuals suffering from diabetes. The parties disputed “the bulk of the language used in the independent claims,” id. at 5, and the court construed the following terms:
- “Reference electrode,” “working electrode,” “counter electrode”: The court construed the term “electrode” to mean a “microelectrode having a width of 15 to 100 [micrometers],” due to references in the specification and the prosecution history. Id. at 6-9.
- “Capillary Chamber,” construed to mean “a space or channel that is defined over the electrodes that directs flow of the blood sample over the electrodes.” Id. at 9-10.
- “Detecting,” construed to mean “discovering or ascertaining the presence of.” Id. at 10-12. The court also noted that “following said detecting, applying or controlling the voltage” required no further construction. Id. at 13-14.
- “An electroactive reaction product,” construed to mean “a chemical compound produced during a reaction that is capable of donating or receiving electrons to an electrode.” Id. at 12-13.
- “Correlating the electrooxidized electroactive reaction product to the concentration of glucose in the blood sample,” construed to mean “using a relationship between the electrooxidized reaction product and the concentration of glucose in blood.” Id. at 14-16.
- “Providing a readout of the glucose concentration in the blood sample”: the court held that the term “readout” implied something that could be read by the user. Id. at 16-17.
- “About,” construed to mean “approximately.” Id. at 19-21.
- “Electrooxidize,” construed to mean “to donate at least one electron at an electrode.” Id. at. 23-24.
- “Providing a disposable biosensor test strip,” and “determining,” held to not need construction. Id. at 18-19, 21-22.