People of Michigan v. Edward Duane Pointer-Bey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the term “lofty fibrous batting” was sufficiently definite where the specification provided detailed examples, and the parties’ expert testimony supported the conclusion that a POSA could objectively identify characteristics of the term
• relying on extrinsic evidence as further support for its conclusion that the challenged claim term is not indefinite
• rejecting perceived inconsistency argument because “examples in the 6 specification may be used to inform . . . without being directly construed into the claim”
• “[A] patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.”
• “[A] patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.”
• first citing 35 U.S.C. § 102 (2006); and then citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).