Unique Concepts v Brown: Framing case: 2 straight pieces to form angled piece vs angled piece. During process, claim was narrowed. Claim 9 was dependent on claim 1, claim 9 struck, doesn’t that mean 1 could encompass 9?
1.    Dissent: If you read specification they talked about 2 separate pieces as one way of embodying invention, cut of edges fit together. Then you realize when inventor talks about corner piece they mean either 2 straight pieces or one angled piece.
2.    “Do it your selfer”: evidence that what makes invention special is it is easier for the novice.
a.    Claim doesn’t say anything about this.
b.    Specification shouldn’t be used to find limitations on claim. Allowed to go back to specification to interpret, but some line, spectrum, finding limitation on specification and porting it to claim is prohibiting.
3.    Majority: you don’t immediately jump to specification, first think of plain meaning of words.
a.    Estoppel worry: Narrow things get through easily, then attempt to claim broad rights.
b.    Rule: if you use plain English, people won’t realize they should go to specification so court holds him to his plain old language. You can make up your own terms but not ones that are misdescriptive or confusing, that seem clean on their fact but aren’t. Maj worried if you use what seems to be clean words, can’t warp definitions.