THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY v. NOVA CHEMICALS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Different measurement options for a claim term may be indefinite when they produce different results

by Steve Driskill | Aug 28, 2015 | [sub] breadth, Indefiniteness

A claimed value that can be measured in several ways may be held to be indefinite rather than simply broad when the different measurements produce different results. Here, for example, a slope of strain hardening coefficient claimed within a certain range was found to...

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 Steve Driskill | 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...

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA v. SANDOZ INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Mathematical issues of indefiniteness

by Steve Driskill | Jul 26, 2013 | [sub] breadth, Indefiniteness

An ambiguous term that refers to an indeterminate one of several possibilities may be held to be indefinite rather than simply broad when the claim scope changes dramatically depending on how it is construed. This is especially true for mathematical ranges where the...

ERNIE BALL, INC. v. EARVANA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Mathematical issues of indefiniteness

by Steve Driskill | Jan 24, 2013 | [sub] breadth, Indefiniteness

Be careful when using mathematical terms that have very broad even if precise definitions. While the applicant here clearly intended to convey only the basic idea that the shape of the intonation portions is not arced like the crest of a sine wave, they ended up...