What does “the additional information” mean? The court agreed with the parties that the term lacked antecedent basis, but didn’t find that dispositive. The term was used elsewhere in the patents, but was paired with examples in those locations. It appeared that its inclusion in this claim was simply an improper insertion – but noting that it is not the court’s job to rewrite or proofread claim language, the court concluded that the term was indefinite.
© 2022 Michael C. Smith. Use limited to individual subscribers. Further distribution prohibited.
This blog does not constitute legal advice. If you’d like to discuss a related legal matter, please contact Michael C. Smith via email or call 903-938-8900.