▁alleg ing ▁in fr ing ement ▁based ▁on ▁" use " ▁require ▁special ▁attention ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁difficulty ▁in ▁interpre ting ▁the ▁term ▁" use ". ▁Inter pret ation ▁of ▁the ▁term ▁" use " ▁begins ▁with ▁the ▁plain ▁meaning ▁of ▁the ▁words ▁" use " ▁and ▁its ▁French ▁complement ▁" exp lo iter ". ▁ ▁" Exp lo iter " ▁was ▁found ▁to ▁l end ▁clar ification ▁to ▁the ▁term ▁" use " ▁in ▁pat ent ▁law , ▁leading ▁to ▁a ▁definition ▁of ▁" util ization ▁with ▁a ▁view ▁to ▁production ▁or ▁advantage ". ▁Following ▁the ▁rules ▁of ▁stat ut ory ▁interpretation , ▁this ▁plain ▁meaning ▁of ▁" use " ▁was ▁interpreted ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁the ▁Pat ent ▁Act , ▁the ▁context ▁of ▁the ▁other ▁words ▁in ▁the ▁provision , ▁and ▁the ▁wisdom ▁of ▁case ▁law . ▁In ▁the ▁context ▁of ▁pat ent ▁in fr ing ement , ▁" use " ▁is ▁defined ▁as ▁any ▁activity ▁that ▁" dep riv es ▁the ▁invent or ▁in ▁whole ▁or ▁in ▁part , ▁directly ▁or ▁indirect ly , ▁of ▁full ▁enjoy ment ▁of ▁the ▁ ▁mon opol y ▁con ferred ▁by ▁law ". ▁ ▁The ▁court , ▁in ▁M ons anto ▁Canada ▁Inc . ▁v . ▁Sch me iser , ▁summar izes ▁the ▁interpretation ▁of ▁" use ": ▁ ▁" Use " ▁or ▁" exp lo iter ", ▁in ▁their ▁ordinary ▁dictionary ▁meaning , ▁denote ▁util ization ▁with ▁a ▁view ▁to ▁production ▁or ▁advantage . ▁The ▁basic ▁principle ▁in ▁determ ining ▁whether ▁the