5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 106 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from John D. Watts v. Xl Systems, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | John D. Watts v. Xl Systems, Inc. Anchor | green | “one purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.” | 36 |
| 2 | Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. | green | “a claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the protected invention.” | 27 |
| 3 | Bates v. Coe | green | “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the language employed in the claims.” | 25 |
| 4 | Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc. | green | “focusing the inquiry on the abstract meaning of words rather than on the meaning of the claim terms within the context of the patent.” | 14 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.