Cambridge Wire Cloth Co. v. Laitram Corp.

How later courts describe this case

• “This court has cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.”
• “References to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations.”
• “[T]he district court properly interpreted the claim in light of the prosecution history in the first trial, defining ‘slightly greater’ spacing in terms of its purpose____”
• “inefficient infringement is still infringement”