How to Talk Like a Markman.

Claim construction to some is about context, and to others it is a pure definitional exercise on a per-word basis.  To talk the talk, one would talk like this.

For those unaware of what e-mailers of ordinary skill understand, the “claim term ‘E-mail message’ is construed to mean ‘an electronic message.’”  Digital Impact, Inc. v. Bigfoot Interactive, Inc., (N.D. Calif. 4/13/07).
If you’re a person of skill in the art of “creating realistic computer animations of characters,” then guess whether a “gesture action” is a “defined movement of joints over time which symbolizes or emphasizes an idea, sentiment or attitude,” or is it “body part undulation executed under the control of a set of coupled frequency and range signals.”  One expert opined that even the “casual pose” of an animated character would “entail at least some undulation,” while the other felt that the character movements are “random, rather than undulatory.”  The Court agreed that anime action was not about sentiment or attitude, but had to be “body part undulation.”  N.Y.Univ. v. Autodesk, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 4/10/07).
Consider the best two ‘money-quotes’ from recent rulings on Markman issues.  The “fact that [one] construction arguably results in a partial (but far from total) redundancy …is an almost unavoidable function of the less than perfect precision of common English usage.”  NYU v. Autodesk.  A “sound claim construction need not always purge every shred of ambiguity.”  Acumed v. Stryker, (CAFC 4/12/2007).  Challenging those are remarks in fn. 2 of Acumed, which augur against forcing the “district court’s definition” to be “so concatenated,” and elevating the CAFC’s “de novo review” to be above “the atmospherics of the Markman hearing.”
Some people spend way too much time reading dictionaries.