Order re: Indefiniteness (.pdf, 126 KB) - United States District Court ...

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2218 Filed01/29/13 Page3 of 15
term of degree, which cannot be construed because no objective anchor is provided in the
specification. Claim 50, the only claim at issue in this litigation, reads:
A portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch screen display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory
and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more
programs including:
instructions for displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on
the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a
plurality of boxes of content;
instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the
structured electronic document;
instructions for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the
first gesture;
instructions for enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that
the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display;
instruction for, while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a
second box other than the first box; and
instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic
document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch
screen display.
U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 B2 (emphasis added).
The imprecise claim term at issue here, “substantially,” is a word of degree. See, e.g., LNP
Engineering Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(considering the term “substantially completely wetted”); Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1377 (considering the
phrase “to increase substantially”). “When a word of degree is used the district court must
determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.”
Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the
specification does not provide a standard for imposing a more precise construction of the term, the
Federal Circuit has ruled that imposing a more precise construction would be error. See Playtex
Products, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Cordis Corp. v.
Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
For example, in Playtex, the Federal Circuit, quoting Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan
Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), stated that “substantial” implies “approximate”
rather than “perfect.” 400 F.3d at 907. The Playtex Court further stated that, “the definition of
‘substantially flattened surfaces’ adopted by the district court introduces a numerical tolerance to
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: INDEFINITENESS
3