indefiniteness

Conditional Dependent Claim Lacking Mutual Exclusivity is Indefinite

The Central District of California recently held a dependent patent claim indefinite for failing to “specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed” under 35 U.S.C. § 112. BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et a… Read More

§ 112 Indefiniteness for Mixing Claims to Apparatus and Method

Claims in a patent directed to medical diagnostics were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instruments, Inc. (S. Ct. 2014), said a court in granting summary judgment of invalidity. Lecat’s Ven… Read More

“Program,” “UI Code,” Not Means-Plus-Function Terms

The Federal Circuit has held that claim terms “program” and “user interface code,” as used in the phrases “program that can operate the movement of the pointer” and “user interface code being configured to detect one… Read More

Beware Indefiniteness under Williamson and 35 U.S.C. §112(f)

Functional patent claim language not only justified an Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC § 112(b), but also justified a new ground of indefiniteness rejection in In re Xie, Ex parte Appeal 2017-000540, Applicati… Read More

“Minimal Redundancy” Makes Patent Claim Indefinite under § 112

The phrase “minimal redundancy” in a patent claim was indefinite under 35 USC § 112 where the patent specification inconsistently described levels of redundancy achieved by its system.  Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., No. 2017-1437… Read More