HP loses in Ex parte Nguyen
HP won on indefiniteness on claim 4. HP used the problematic word "substantially" in a claim, and survived an attack because the specification defined substantially as 90% or more of a referenced quantity. HP also cited Verve v. Crane, 311 F.3d 1116. [Indefiniteness was sustained as to claim 12.]
The victory on claim 4 was Pyrrhic, because claim 4 went down separately to an obviousness attack. Yes, KSR and predictable results were cited.
In re Huang on arguments of counsel also was cited.