3

"Disparaging" prior art does not automatically disclaim scope. Previously it was good practice to characterize prior art for its strengths and weaknesses - particularly weaknesses. Then some judges decided to read the specification into the claims and say that the the inventor must have meant to only claim less than was claimed. Another problem with ...


1

Yes. Japan (at least). see: https://aippi.org/download/commitees/175/GR175japan.pdf In particular where it says: For example, the following may be taken into account for the purpose of claim interpretation and may be subject to estoppel: the description of the prior art cited in the application of the disputed patent (Tokyo District Court decision, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible