BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Terms of degree are not indefinite when their bounds can be inferred from operational requirements

by | Apr 27, 2015 | [sub] ranges, Indefiniteness

Claim language employing terms of degree is not indefinite when its bounds can be inferred from inherent parameters related to proper operation. Here, for example, a “spaced relationship” between two electrodes was found to be sufficiently definite because the spacing...

EIDOS DISPLAY, LLC v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Otherwise indefinite ambiguities may be resolved based on the understanding of one skilled in the art

by | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

Ambiguities in the plain language of the claims may be resolved rather than held indefinite by taking into account how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the limitation at issue after reading the intrinsic record....

LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC v. AMAZON.COM INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Open Markush group may be interpreted as definite closed group when the intrinsic record is reasonably clear

by | Feb 9, 2015 | [sub] breadth, Indefiniteness

Even an otherwise improper open Markush group may be interpreted as a definite closed group when the intrinsic record is reasonably clear in indicating what the claim intended to cover. Here, for example, a semiconductor substrate claimed as being “selected from the...

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC v. AOL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claim limitations dependent on personal preference and individual circumstances are likely indefinite

by | Sep 10, 2014 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

Although terms of degree are not inherently indefinite, claim limitations that are subject to personal preference and individual circumstances probably are indefinite. For example, displaying peripheral images “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user”...