En Banc on Indefiniteness
Patent – Patently-O 2022-08-22
Summary:
by Dennis Crouch
The indefiniteness-focused en banc petition in Nature Simulation Sys. Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., 23 F.4th 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2022) has now been pending for six-months. Most en banc petitions are denied rather quickly. The extended delay here suggests to me that the court will still deny this petition, but the denial will be accompanied by explanatory opinions that further extend the doctrine. Of course, there are several other potential outcomes.
The petition asks two question that I have reframed here:
- Examiner Deference: Should any deference be given to patent examiner actions or statements when determining indefiniteness? (Here, the examiner proposed certain claim language in order to avoid an indefiniteness problem, and the majority gave weight to that conclusion).
- Doctrinal Overlap: Does the fact that the specification “describes and enables practice of the claimed method, including the best mode” have any relevance on whether the claim is definite? (Here, the majority opinion implicitly suggests a relationship).
Petition-20-2257.
Split infinitives: Federal Circuit divides on Indefiniteness
The NSS inventions relates to computer graphics rendering and claims a method of performing Boolean operations on facets of geometric objects.