Fisher-Price wins remand in case against Graco
In an nonprecedential case, the CAFC reversed a decision by EDPa that two patent claims were invalid through indefiniteness, and gave a remand. The patent was US 6,520,862.
The CAFC cited Bancorp, 359 F.3d 1367 concerning the requirements of 35 USC 112 P 2 and also to Exxon v US, 265 F.3d 1371 (which is separately a case involving claims against the government and which also mentions less than ideal drafting of claims).
In the present case, a clerical error in a figure did not rise to the level of creating an indefinite claim.
The CAFC also noted a claim is not indefinite if its antecedent basis is present by implication, citing Cross Med v. Medtronic (CAFC 2005), in turn citing Slimfold v. Kinkead, 810 F.2d 1113.
The CAFC cited Bancorp, 359 F.3d 1367 concerning the requirements of 35 USC 112 P 2 and also to Exxon v US, 265 F.3d 1371 (which is separately a case involving claims against the government and which also mentions less than ideal drafting of claims).
In the present case, a clerical error in a figure did not rise to the level of creating an indefinite claim.
The CAFC also noted a claim is not indefinite if its antecedent basis is present by implication, citing Cross Med v. Medtronic (CAFC 2005), in turn citing Slimfold v. Kinkead, 810 F.2d 1113.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home