GE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC v. LIGHTS OF AMERICA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – General distinctions over the prior art do not provide objective boundaries for terms of degree

by Steve Driskill | Oct 27, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

General distinctions drawn between the claimed invention and the prior art are not sufficient to provide any objective boundaries for terms of degree. Here, for example, the patentee’s argument during prosecution that prior art disk-shaped and plate-shaped heat sinks...

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite

by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. Here, for example, the claimed use of a “processing system” as part of a method where the point of novelty lies elsewhere was found to be incapable of...

ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Measurement techniques for a claimed value need not be specified if understood by one of ordinary skill

by Steve Driskill | Aug 7, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

There is no requirement for the specification to identify a particular measurement technique for ascertaining a claimed value or range of values as long as such an understanding is within the scope of knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, for...

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure

by Steve Driskill | May 18, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure as long as the claim scope is reasonably certain. Here, for example, a user interface feature in which double tapping a displayed document causes it to be enlarged and...

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 Steve Driskill | 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....

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

by Steve Driskill | 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”...