{"id":3472,"date":"2023-01-12T15:47:00","date_gmt":"2023-01-12T21:47:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3472"},"modified":"2023-02-19T12:05:50","modified_gmt":"2023-02-19T18:05:50","slug":"the-inventors-lexicography-governs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3472","title":{"rendered":"The Inventor\u2019s Lexicography Governs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Grace Instrument Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instruments Company, LLC, [2021-2370]<\/a> (January 12, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s finding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 were indefinite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ‘877 patent relates to a viscometer for measuring the viscosity of drilling fluid. The discometer uses a “enlarged” chamber located between a lower chamber, housing the sample fluid, and a pressurization fluid inlet, located in the top section of the viscometer\u2019s
pressure vessel. This enlarged chamber is large enough such that the level of the sample fluid, which before pressurization initially fills both the lower chamber and the enlarged chamber, never falls below the transition point between the lower chamber and enlarged chamber when the application of the pressurization fluid compresses the sample fluid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. A pressurized device comprising:
(a) a pressure vessel within which is vertically disposed at least one top section filled
with a pressurization fluid of a first density and at least one lower section filled with a test sample of a second density,
(b) an enlarged chamber<\/em><\/strong> with reduced openings positioned between the at least one top section and the at least one bottom section for communicating pressure with said top section and said lower section within said pressure vessel,
(c) whereby said pressurization fluid would not mix with said test sample because of the nature of their density difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court determined that the term “enlarged chamber” as used in the claims was indefinite, making the asserted claims of the ‘877 patent invalid. The district court explained that \u201cenlarged\u201d is a \u201cterm of degree\u201d that \u201cnecessarily calls for some comparison against
some baseline.\u201d Finding that the \u2019877 patent \u201cdoes not provide the requisite objective boundaries\u201d for a skilled artisan, the district court held that \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d is indefinite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.\u201d The ultimate conclusion that a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112, \u00b6 2 is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grace argued before the district court that the term \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d should be construed as \u201cthe area between reduced openings that is large enough to hold excess test sample (i.e., the type of fluid normally used in these machines) to prevent mixing of pressurization fluid and test sample below the bottom fin during elevated pressurization.\u201d The district court declined to adopt that construction, concluding that the \u2019877 patent fails to disclose objective
boundaries for a skilled artisan to know what the claimed \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d must be larger than. The Federal Circuit said that this was error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the intrinsic record informs a skilled artisan that the \u2019877 patent and its claims are directed to a viscometer with an \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d that is large enough to prevent pressurization fluid from entering the lower section of the pressure vessel\u2014where the viscosity of the test sample is being measured\u2014during elevated pressurization. In other words, the enlarged chamber has to be able to contain enough sample fluid at the pre-pressurization stage such that, during pressurization, the sample fluid level does not fall below the bottom of the enlarged chamber and into the viscometer\u2019s lower, testing section. Although \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d is not a term of art, the intrinsic record sufficiently guides a skilled artisan to the meaning of that term as used in the \u2019877 patent. Where the specification instructs as to the meaning of a claim term, \u201cthe inventor\u2019s lexicography governs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit concluded that the term \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d in the \u2019877 patent meant \u201ca chamber that is large enough to contain excess test sample prior to pressurization to prevent mixing of the test sample and pressurization fluid in the lower measurement zone when the test sample is pressurized to maximum rated pressure.\u201d The Court thus vacated the district court\u2019s determination that \u201cenlarged chamber\u201d is indefinite, vacatef the district court\u2019s invalidity determinations based thereon, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Grace Instrument Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instruments Company, LLC, [2021-2370] (January 12, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s finding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 were indefinite. The ‘877 patent relates to a viscometer for … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-indefiniteness"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3472"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3472\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3473,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3472\/revisions\/3473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}