Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[Gator532]

The point of claim construction is to instruct the jury on what the claim means from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art. For many claim terms, attempting to “construe” the claim language adds little in the way of clarity. Where the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art would add nothing to the analysis, there may be no need to construe the terms. Thus, non-technical terms (e.g., “on” or “above” or “surround”) and terms of degree (e.g., “approximately” or “about” or “substantially”) may not require construction by the court. Where “construing” a claim term would involve simply substituting a synonym for the claim term, it may be appropriate to allow the claim language to speak for itself.
Construction of a term is clearly appropriate in the case of technical terms, where a typical juror would not understand the term without assistance. Of course, in all cases, where the intrinsic and applicable extrinsic evidence provide further meaning to a term (such as disclaimers, descriptions of “the present invention,” and claim differentiation), the court should account for such added evidence in the claim construction. But where the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence do not meaningfully add to the definition of a term, it is appropriate (and often preferred) to allow straightforward claim language to stand as-is.