Xerox v. 3Com
CAFC (June 8, 2006) (claim term a??sloppiness spacea?? not ambiguous and does not render claim indefinite where specification provides a general guideline and examples).
Xerox sued 3Com asserting that 3Coma??s a??Graffitia?? system infringed Xeroxa??s handwriting recognition patent.? Two of the claims at issue included a limitation that symbols be a??well separated from each other in sloppiness spacea??.? The district court had determined that the claims were indefinite because the term was a??not clearly defined or explaineda?? and that there was a??no way to determine whether or not two symbols do achieve sufficient separationa??.? (Interestingly, the district court went on to state that a??even if . . . not invalid as indefinite . . . [the claims] are anticipateda??!)
Xerox argued that the term was defined as being a??distinguished by a??substantial angular offset (e.g., at least 45?° and preferably 90?°) or directional distinction (opposing directions).a??a?? and examples were given in specification.? ??The Federal Circuit held that a??[w]hile those descriptions are not rigorously precise, they provide adequate guidance . . . .a??? The rule, according to the Court was that claim terms are a??not indefinite when [the] specification provides a??a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine, [even though task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree], whethera?? [the] claim limitation is satisfied.a??
Click here to view the full opinion.