In sequence Sample Clauses
The "In sequence" clause establishes that certain actions, obligations, or events must occur in a specific, predetermined order. In practice, this means that one party cannot proceed to the next step or requirement until the previous one has been completed, such as requiring payment before delivery or completion of one phase before starting another. This clause ensures orderly progression and coordination between parties, reducing confusion and disputes by clarifying the required sequence of performance.
In sequence. A displaced Nurse shall be offered the choice of displacing the most junior Nurse in the displaced Nurse’s area of service (as defined by the Employer) in the Bargaining Unit.
In sequence. Defendants argue that when the inventors spoke of steps “in sequence,” they meant that that chemicals leading to the increase in divalent cations and then to the reduction in phosphorylation must be added in sequence. They maintain that no other reading of the claim language is logical, particularly, because in their view, scientists did not understand the sequential reaction of these two processes in 1993.
Claim 1 claims a process for in vitro parthenogenic activation of an oocyte “comprising the following steps in sequence”: the increase of intracellular levels of divalent cations in the oocyte and the reduction of phosphorylation of cellular proteins in the oocyte. Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the plain meaning of the language is that the steps occur in sequence; that is, step a occurs before step b. The claim recites a result. The claim says nothing about the administration of chemicals to achieve the reactions or the order in which such chemicals might be administered. Therefore, it is not limited to a method in which the chemicals are administered in sequence, rather than simultaneously, so long as the resulting reactions occur sequentially. As to the argument that scientists would not have understood the sequential nature of the reactions when the ‘720 patent application was filed, the patent specifications includes the inventors’ observation that the initial calcium transient “appears to be an upstream event.” Col. 6, In. 61-62. The language of other claims in the patent does not demonstrate that the inventors intended that claim 1 refer to both treatments and results. Claims 8 and 9 are claims that depend on claim 1. They recite specific processes to achieve the results claimed in claim 1. Claim 18 is an independent claim. Like claims 8 and 9, it claims specific ways of achieving the result claimed in claim 1. The legal presumption is that the use of different words or phrases in separate claims implies a significant distinction between the claims. See Tandon Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 123 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The specification language does not mandate a different meaning of “in sequence.” In describing one of the experiments, the inventors refer to sequential treatment and describe the time it takes for the sequential steps to occur after administration of particular chemicals, ‘720 ▇▇▇., col. 10, In. 54-55, but they do so using very different language from the language they use in claim 1. Instead of reciting t...