Exxon Research and Engineering Company v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim limitation that average particle diameter be greater than 5 was not indefinite where no upper limit on particle size was given
• holding that a claim limitation that average particle diameter be greater than 5 μm was not indefinite where no upper limit on particle size was given
• holding that claim was not invalid because one of skill in the art would understand that specification taught that “substantial absence of slug flow” would be determined “with reference to whether reactor efficiency is materially affected”
• adding that courts must attempt to construe all claims “amenable to construction, however difficult that task may be”
• stating that the patent was lacking in \specificity that in some instances would have been easy to provide and would have largely obviated the need to address the issue of indefiniteness” but holding that the flaws ultimately were not \fatal”
• finding “for a period sufficient” definite because the limitation was expressed in terms tha<t were reasonably precise in light of the subject matter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).