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 “substantially centered” was found to be sufficiently definite without a true objective standard of measure, based on common understanding and an example from the specification. “The definiteness requirement … mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to an indefiniteness rejection for use of the term “substantially.”
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here, in addition to predominantly trade dress and design claims, are directed to certain features in the iPhone’s user interface. In particular, the claims recite a user interface feature in which a user’s double tapping on a portion of an electronic document causes the portion to be enlarged and “substantially centered” on the display.
Issue(s): Whether the “substantially centered” limitation is indefinite for lack of a corresponding objective standard against which the scope of the term can be measured.
Holding(s): No. “[The accused infringer’s] complaint about a lack of an ‘objective standard [of] measure’ is seeking a level of precision that exceeds the definiteness required of valid patents.” In addition to common understanding, the specification provides “an embodiment … where the enlarged portion of the document is essentially centered except for ‘a predefined amount of padding along the sides of the display.’” Thus, based on this example, one skilled in the art could interpret “substantially centered” to mean “essentially centered except for a marginal spacing to accommodate ancillary graphical user interface elements.”