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 youre 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 courts definition to be so concatenated, and elevating the CAFCs de novo review to be above the atmospherics of the Markman hearing.
Some people spend way too much time reading dictionaries.