Hearing aid technology claims are construed
Sleet, C.J. The Court construes twenty-nine terms from two patents.
The patents-in-suit relate to hearing aid technology. The Court declines to add a “non-recursive” limitation that is not supported by the specification, rejecting defendants’ proposed disavowal or disclaimer argument. Plaintiff’s proposed construction of “signal limiter means” is rejected because it fails to link its proposed structure of this means-plus-function claim term to the function recited in the claim. The Court further ruled that the term “said acoustic feedback” dictates the sequential nature of the claim steps.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
