Source: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Biosig_Instruments_Inc_v_Nautilus_Inc_715_F3d_891_106_USPQ2d_1554
Timestamp: 2014-04-23 09:56:05
Document Index: 217191595

Matched Legal Cases: ['§112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 282', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§\n112', '§ 4', '§ 112', '§ 112']

Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 715 F.3d 891, 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 2013), Court Opinion
715 F.3d 891
106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1554
2013 BL 111212
Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 715 F.3d 891, 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 2013) [2013 BL 111212]
BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAUTILUS, INC.,
No. 2012-1289.
April 26, 2013. Rehearing En Banc Denied June 28, 2013.
Asserted claims directed to heart rate monitor that processes electrocardiogram (ECG) signals while eliminating electromyogram
(EMG) noise signals, which recite “live” electrodes and “common”
electrodes mounted in “spaced relationship” with each other, are not invalid for indefiniteness, even though patent's specification does not define “spaced relationship” with actual parameters, since patent, which claims apparatus consisting of elongate cylindrical member with live and common electrodes on its surface for contact with user's hands, discloses certain inherent parameters of device that to skilled artisan may be sufficient to understand metes and bounds of “spaced relationship,” since “whereby”
clause in representative claim, which describes function of substantially removing EMG signals that patent examiner found “crucial”
to overcoming cited prior art and confirming patentability of claims on reexamination, sheds additional light on meaning of “spaced relationship” between electrodes, since specification also describes, in part, electrodes' “spaced relationship” in terms of their corresponding function of detecting distinct electrical signals, and since record, including extrinsic evidence in form of expert testimony, shows that skilled artisan could apply test, using standard oscilloscope, to determine “spaced relationship” as pertaining to function of substantially removing EMG signals.
Federal district court incorrectly found that asserted claims directed to heart rate monitor, which recite “live” electrodes and “common” electrodes mounted in “spaced relationship”
with each other on cylindrical member, are indefinite on ground that patentee failed to articulate with specificity dimensions or other parameters characterizing space between electrodes, since claims need not be plain on their face in order to avoid determination of invalidity for indefiniteness, and objections relating to need for some experimentation in determining scope of claims will carry little weight, since district court's objections to claims as written do not support imprecision of claims, but rather, if relevant, relate to enablement, in that they are directed to operability of varying embodiments of claimed heart rate monitor, since claimed apparatus, which consists of elongate cylindrical member with “live” and “common”
electrodes on its surface for contact with user's hands, has inherent parameters where “spaced relationship” cannot be larger than width of user's hand, since skilled artisans can readily discover bounds of “spaced relationship” through tests using standard equipment, such that “upper bound” of “spaced relationship”
is not lacking, and since record demonstrates that variables, including spacing, size, shape, and material affecting “spaced relationship”
between electrodes, can be determined by those skilled in art.
[3] Patentability/Validity — Specification — Claim adequacy ►115.1109 [Show Topic Path]
Patent construction — Claims — Functional ►125.1311 [Show Topic Path]
Claims are not necessarily indefinite for using functional language, since functional language in means-plus-function format is expressly authorized by 35 U.S.C. §112, and may also be used to limit claims without employing that format; in present case, federal district court, in holding asserted claims directed to heart rate monitor invalid based on its finding that claim term “spaced relationship” is indefinite, erred to extent it failed to consider evidence, in form of test results and corresponding references to claimed function of substantially removing electromyogram (EMG) noise signals, on ground that evidence was conclusory and spoke only to “function of the claim,” since proper meaning of “spaced relationship”
must be determined in context of intrinsic evidence, including claim language, specification, and prosecution history, whereas district court analyzed “spaced relationship” in vacuum by ignoring functional aspects of claims; claims are not invalid as claiming both apparatus and method of use, since patent recites apparatus claims with functional limitations that describe capability of substantially removing EMG signals, and since claims are clearly limited to heart rate monitor possessing recited structure that is capable of substantially removing EMG signals, and thus are not indefinite.
[**1555] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Alvin K. Hellerstein, J.
[*893] Michael J. Bonella, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, of Radnor, PA, argued
for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Paul B. Milcetic. Of
counsel were Todd Kupstas and Jenna Pellecchia.
James E. Geringer, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, OR, argued for
defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were John D. Vandenberg and Philip
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. Concurring opinion
filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL.
Biosig Instruments, Inc. ("Biosig") is the assignee of U.S. Patent No.
5,337,753 ("the '753 patent"), which is directed to a heart rate monitor
associated with an exercise apparatus and/or exercise procedures. Biosig
brought a patent infringement action against Nautilus, Inc. ("Nautilus") in
district court alleging that Nautilus infringed claims 1 and 11 of the '753
patent. After claim construction, Nautilus filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking, in relevant portion, to have the '753 patent held invalid
for indefiniteness. The district court granted Nautilus's motion, and Biosig
appealed. Because the claims at issue are not invalid for indefiniteness,
the district court's decision is reversed and remanded for further
The '753 patent is directed to a heart rate monitor that purports to
improve upon the prior art by effectively eliminating noise signals during
the process of detecting a user's heart rate. '753 patent [*894] col. 1 ll. 5-10.
to the patent, prior art monitors did not eliminate signals given off by
skeletal muscles ("electromyo-gram" or "EMG" signals), which are brought
about when users move their arms or squeeze the monitor with their fingers.
Id. col. 1 ll. 19-22. Because EMG signals are of the same frequency range as
electrical signals generated by the heart ("electrocardiograph" or "ECG"
signals), EMG signals can mask ECG signals rendering heart rate
determination while exercising difficult. Id. col. 1 ll. 22-25.
The '753 patent discloses an apparatus preferably mounted on exercise
equipment that measures heart rates by, inter alia, processing ECG signals
from which EMG signals are substantially removed. Id. col. 1. ll. 36-41. The
claimed heart rate monitor consists of an elongate hollow cylindrical member
that houses electronic circuitry as illustrated below:
[**1556] Exhibit
'753 patent fig. 1. A user's left and right hands — 100 and 200 — each
contact one of the "live" electrodes — 9 and 13 — and one of the "common"
electrodes — 11 and 15 — on either end of the cylindrical member 3. Id. col.
2 ll. 50-64, col. 3 ll. 26-31. The electronic circuitry includes a
difference amplifier 23, which is connected to the live electrodes 9 and 13.
Id. col. 3 ll. 7-10. The common electrodes 11 [***2] and 15 are connected to each
other and to a point of common potential, for example, a common ground. Id.
col. 3 ll. 5-7. An illustration of the circuitry is shown below:
'753 patent fig. 2. Inputs 25 and 27 are of the EMG signals and other
noise signals opposite polarity. Id. col. 3 ll. 10-13. As are of
substantially equal amplitude and
[*895] phase, they cancel each other out in the difference amplifier to provide a
substantially zero output of EMG and other noise signals. Id. col. 3 ll.
33-43. In contrast, ECG signals, being of opposite phase, will be added and
therefore further amplified in the difference amplifier so that the output
of the difference amplifier is substantially due to the ECG signals only.
Id. col. 3 ll. 44-50.
1. A heart rate monitor for use by a user in association with
exercise apparatus and/or exercise procedures, comprising:
electronic circuitry including a difference amplifier having a
first input terminal of a first polarity and a second input terminal
a first live electrode and a first common electrode mounted on
said first half in spaced relationship with each other;
a second live electrode and a second common electrode mounted on
said second half in spaced relationship with each other;
said first and second common electrodes being connected to each
other and to a point of common potential
'753 patent col. 5 ll. 17-36 (emphases added). In addition to the capability
of substantially removing EMG signals, claim 1 recites a monitor, a means
for measuring time intervals between heart pulses, and a means for
calculating the heart rate of a user using the measured time intervals. See
id. col. 5 l. 37 — col. 6 l. 15.
Asserted-dependent claim 11 further specifies that the claimed "elongate
member" is "mounted on an exercise apparatus." Id. col. 7 ll. 17-20. Figures
7 and 8 are illustrative of a heart rate monitor mounted on a bicycle and a
stair-climbing exercise machine:
Id. figs. 7-8.
The dispute between the parties has been ongoing for years, stemming from
[*896] the late 1990s when Biosig was in discussions with Nautilus's predecessor
Stairmaster Company regarding Biosig's patented technology. Despite [**1557] these
discussions, Stairmaster Company, and later Nautilus, began selling exercise
equipment that Biosig alleges infringes its patented technology. These
accused products consist of heart rate monitors mounted on exercise
Biosig sued Nautilus for infringing the '753 patent in August 2004 ("2004
Action"). During the pendency of that litigation, Nautilus twice sought ex
parte reexamination of the '753 patent from the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("PTO"). The first reexamination request was based
primarily on U.S. Patent No. 4,444,200 ("Fujisaki").[fn1] The PTO granted
Nautilus's request, and in April 2009, the PTO issued an office action
rejecting, inter alia, claim 1 as anticipated by Fujisaki and claim 11 as
obvious over Fujisaki in view of other prior [***3] art references. After Biosig
filed its response to this PTO office action, Nautilus requested a second
reexamination of the '753 patent, again, citing Fujisaki as the primary
reference. The PTO granted Nautilus's second request for reexamination, and
the two reexamination proceedings were consolidated in December 2009. The
PTO ultimately concluded these reexamination proceedings in June 2010 and
confirmed the patentability of the '753 patent without amendment. During the
pendency of this reexamination proceeding, the parties voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice the claims and counterclaims of the 2004 Action.
Upon conclusion of the reexamination proceeding, Biosig re-instituted a
patent infringement action against Nautilus on October 8, 2010. On August
11, 2011, the district court conducted a Markman hearing, and on September
29, 2011, issued its order construing certain disputed claim terms.[fn2] On
November 10, 2011, Nautilus moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
seeking summary judgment on two issues: infringement and invalidity for
On February 22, 2012, the district court held a hearing on Nautilus's
[*897] summary judgment. As to the issue of infringement, the district court denied
Nautilus's motion as premature because the parties had yet to undertake
significant discovery. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 5:23-6:2, Biosig Instruments, Inc.
v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 10CV7722 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2012), ECF No. 58 ("Summ.
J. Hr'g Tr."). On invalidity, the district court granted Nautilus's motion,
holding that the '753 patent's "spaced relationship" term as recited in
claim 1 was indefinite as a matter of law. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 51:21-52:1.
After the parties completed summary judgment briefing but before the
hearing, Nautilus filed a third request for reexamination of the '753 patent
on January 25, 2012, and again, Nautilus cited Fujisaki as a primary prior
art reference. This time, on February 17, 2012, the PTO denied Nautilus's
request, finding that there were no substantial new questions of
patentability raised by the request. Biosig was notified of the PTO's denial
of Nautilus's third reexamination request after the district court's summary
judgment hearing and decision. In light of this new fact, Biosig moved for
reconsideration of the district court's decision granting Nautilus's motion
for summary judgment of invalidity, which the district court denied on June
12, 2012. Biosig timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
[**1558] DISCUSSION
This court reviews the district court's grant or denial of motions for
summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. MicroStrategy Inc.
v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2005). The Second
Circuit reviews de novo a district court's grant of a motion for summary
judgment. Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 358 (2d Cir.2011).
Summary judgment motions may be granted only where "there is no genuine
matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In making this determination, a court
must "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and
it [***4] may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097,
147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
The sole issue presented to this court is whether the district court erred
in holding that the asserted claims of the '753 patent is invalid for
indefiniteness as a matter of law. In particular, the district court held
that "spaced relationship" as recited in claim 1 and referring to the
spacing between the common and live electrodes was not distinctly and
particularly claimed in the patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
2.[fn3]
Indefiniteness is a legal issue this court reviews without deference. Star
Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1373
(Fed.Cir.2011) ("Star Scientific II"). Section 112, 112, requires that the
specification of a patent "conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
regards as his invention." "Because claims delineate the patentee's right to
exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be
[*898] inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what
subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent."
Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249
(Fed.Cir.2008).
A claim is indefinite only when it is "not amenable to construction" or
"insolubly ambiguous." Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). "In and of itself, a reduction of the meaning of a claim term into
words is not dispositive of whether the term is definite. . . . And if
reasonable efforts at claim construction result in a definition that does
not provide sufficient particularity and clarity to inform skilled artisans
of the bounds of the claim, the claim is insolubly ambiguous and invalid for
indefmiteness." Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
537 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2008) ("Star Scientific I") (citations
omitted). "Thus, a construed claim can be indefinite if the construction
remains insolubly ambiguous. . . ." Star Scientific II, 655 F.3d at 1373;
see also Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1377-79
(Fed.Cir.2001) (accepting the district court's claim construction and
separately undertaking an analysis of the claims at issue to determine
indefmiteness); Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.,
236 F.3d 684, 689-90, 692 (Fed.Cir.2001) (same); Minn. Min. and Mfg. Co. v.
Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1992)
General principles of claim construction apply when determining
indefiniteness. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332-33
(Fed.Cir.2010). We therefore primarily consider the intrinsic evidence
consisting of the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution
history. Id. In addition, similar to claim construction, courts may consider
certain extrinsic evidence in resolving disputes regarding indefmiteness.
Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., 265 F.3d at 1376 (citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS
Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc)); see also Verve,
LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119-20 (Fed. Cir.2002) (recognizing
that guidance as to measurement of a term of degree can come from the
intrinsic record or from the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
art); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life [***5] Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367,
1375-76 (Fed.Cir.2004) (finding evidence not publicly available at the time
of the invention may [**1559] nonetheless be probative to show that the term was in
use and had a discernible meaning to at least some persons practicing in the
field). In doing so, the court is not weighing evidence or making factual
findings, but rather, looking to extrinsic evidence as part of the normal
course of engaging in construction of the patent. Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1376
(citing Cybor, 138 F.3d at 1454).
When a "word of degree" is used, the court must determine whether the
patent provides "some standard for measuring that degree." Seattle Box Co.,
Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed.Cir.1984).
Similarly, when a claim limitation is defined in "purely functional terms,"
a determination of whether the limitation is sufficiently definite is
"highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the specification and
the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art . . .)."
Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1255.
[1] The disputed term "spaced relationship" does not suffer from
indefmiteness. Because the term was amenable to
[*899] construction, indefiniteness here would require a showing that a person of
ordinary skill would find "spaced relationship" to be insolubly ambiguous —
that it fails to provide sufficient clarity delineating the bounds of the
claim to one skilled in the art. In this CSS 6, S skilled artisan would find
such boundaries provided in the intrinsic evidence.
The district court construed "spaced relationship" to mean that "there is
a defined relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode
on one side of the cylindrical bar and the same or a different defined
relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode on the
other side of the cylindrical bar." Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 10:16-22.
Notwithstanding that this disputed term was amenable to construction, the
district court determined that the term was indefinite. Specifically, the
district court stated that "a spaced relationship did not tell me or anyone
what precisely the space should be. . . . Not even any parameters as to what
the space should be. . . . Nor whether the spaced relationship on the left
side should be the same as the spaced relationship on the right side." Summ.
J. Hr'g Tr. 23:3-11.
Turning to the intrinsic evidence, the district court is correct that the
specification of the 753 patent does not specifically define "spaced
relationship" with actual parameters, e.g., that the space between the live
and common electrodes is one inch. Nevertheless, the '753 patent's claim
language, specification, and the figures illustrating the "spaced
relationship" between the live and common electrodes are telling and provide
sufficient clarity to skilled artisans as to the bounds of this disputed
term. For example, on the one hand, the distance between the live electrode
and the common electrode cannot be greater than the width of a user's hands
because claim 1 requires the live and common electrodes to independently
detect electrical signals at two distinct points of a hand. On the other
hand, it is not feasible that the distance between the live [***6] and common
electrodes be infmitesimally small, effectively merging the live and common
electrodes into a single electrode with one detection point. See '753 patent
col. 3 ll. 26-31 (describing how each hand is placed over the live and
common electrodes so that they are "in physical and electrical contact with
both electrodes."). Thus, the '753 patent discloses certain inherent
parameters of the claimed apparatus, which to a skilled artisan may be
sufficient to understand the metes and bounds of "spaced relationship."
The functionality of the claimed heart rate monitor as recited in claim 1,
described in the specification, and which provided the basis for overcoming
the PTO's office action rejections during the reexamination, sheds further
light on the meaning of "spaced relationship." Specifically, claim 1
whereby, a first electromyogram signal will be detected between
said first live electrode and said first common electrode, and a
second electromyogram signal, of substantially equal magnitude and
phase to said first electromyogram signal will be detected between
said second live electrode and said second common electrode; so
that, when said first electromyogram signal is applied to said first
terminal and said second electro-myogram signal is applied to said
second terminal, the first and second electro-myogram signals will
be subtracted from each other to produce a substantially zero
electromyogram signal at the output of said difference amplifier. .
'753 patent col. 5 ll. 48-61. This "whereby" clause describes the function
of substantially removing EMG signals that necessarily follows from the
previously recited
[*900] structure consisting of the elongate member, the live electrode, and the
common electrode. Id. col. 5 ll. 42-47. Importantly, the EMG signal is
detected [**1560] between the live and common electrodes, which are in "spaced
relationship" with each other. Even more significantly, the PTO examiner
found this function to be "crucial" as a reason for overcoming the cited
prior art and confirming the patentability of the asserted claims upon
reexamination. J.A. 139-46. Thus, the recitation of this function in claim 1
is highly relevant in ascertaining the proper bounds of the "spaced
relationship" between the live and common electrodes. See Hoffer v.
Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir.2005) (per curiam) ("[W]hen
the whereby' clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it
cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.").
The specification also describes, in part, the electrodes' "spaced
relationship" in terms of their corresponding function of detecting distinct
electrical signals, whereby EMG signals are substantially removed in the
difference amplifier so that the output of the difference amplifier
substantially consists only of the ECG signal. See, e.g., '753 patent col. 1
ll. 53-58, col. 2 ll. 12-19. According to Biosig, when configuring the
claimed heart rate monitor, skilled artisans can determine the "spaced
relationship" between live and common electrodes by calculating [***7] the point in
which EMG signals are substantially removed.
During reexamination, Biosig presented evidence in support of this
position in a declaration by the inventor, Mr. Gregory Lekhtman, which was
submitted in response to a PTO office action. See 01 Communique Lab., Inc.
v. LogMeln, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2012) (considering statements
made during reexamination as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim
construction). His declaration was based largely on tests he performed to
show the effects of electrode configuration on EMG signals measured in the
palms of the users' hands. In particular, he represented that the strength
of an EMG signal measurement is proportional to the space between the active
and ground electrode and the size of the electrodes. J.A. 194-95. He further
declared that it was common knowledge for skilled artisans in 1992 that EMG
potentials on each hand would be different, and that the '753 patent
requires a configuration of the detectors that produce equal EMG signals
from the left and right hands. J.A. 200. This equalization or balancing,
according to Mr. Lekhtman, is achieved by detecting EMG signals on the left
and right palms, which are delivered to a differential amplifier in the EMG
measuring device. Available design variables are then adjusted until the
differential output is minimized, i.e., close to zero, and the ECG to EMG
ratio is determined to be sufficient for an accurate heart rate
determination. J.A. 200-01. Mr. Lekhtman explained that some of these design
variables in producing a balanced detection of EMG signals include spacing,
size, shape and materials of the electrodes. Moreover, Mr. Lekhtman
represented that a common analog oscilloscope available in 1992 would have
been used by those skilled in the art to measure the signals and to
determine the best ECG/EMG ratio. J.A. 210-11.
For comparison, Mr. Lekhtman tested the circuitry as recited in the '753
patent and the circuitry as recited in Fujisaki, the prior art cited during
reexamination. Mr. Lekhtman's test results indicated that an ECG/EMG ratio
"in the range of about 3-10 would be manifested at the output of the
differential amplifier" of the '753 patent as having substantially zero
influence from the EMG signal. J.A. 213; 343. Conversely, an ECG/EMG ratio
of about 1 [*901] or
less, as generated by the circuitry claimed in the Fujisaki patent, was
found to be masking the ECG signal and thus requiring further filtering
after the differential amplifier. J.A. 213.
Mr. Lekhtman also described Dr. Henrietta Galiana's test results of a
laboratory mockup of the claimed apparatus — results prepared in the course
of the 2004 Action at the district court against Nautilus. J.A. 204-05;
1029-56. Her test results and corresponding report supported Mr. Lekhtman's
statements and demonstrated that two detected EMG signals on opposite hands
can indeed have substantially the same amplitude and phase, and that a
difference amplifier will then reduce those EMG signals to substantially
zero. J.A. 205; 1048-54.
Finally, extrinsic evidence underscores the intrinsic evidence. In
particular, [***8] Biosig submitted a declaration of yet another expert, Dr. George
Yanulis, in support of its opposition to Nautilus's summary judgment motion
in the underlying district court litigation, which confirmed Mr. Lekhtman's
and Dr. Galiana's test results and reports. J.A. 1670.
In summary, the claims provide inherent parameters sufficient for a
skilled artisan to understand the bounds of "spaced relationship." In
addition, a skilled artisan could apply a test and determine the "spaced
relationship" as pertaining to the function of substantially removing EMG
signals. Indeed, the test would have included a standard oscilloscope
[**1561] connected to both the inputs and outputs of the differential amplifier to
view the signal wave forms and to measure signal characteristics. With this
test, configurations could have been determined by analyzing the
differential amplifier input and output signals for detecting EMG and ECG
signals and observing the substantial removal of EMG signals from ECG
signals while simulating an exercise. These parameters constitute the metes
and bounds of "spaced relationship" as articulated in the '753 patent.
Nothing more rigorous is required under § 112, ¶ 2.
[2] The district court nonetheless held Biosig had not articulated with
specificity the dimensions or other parameters characterizing the space
between the electrodes: "It should be half inch, one inch, two inches, three
inches. What is the space[d] relationship?" Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 35:7-8. The
district court likewise stated that the '753 patent failed to disclose the
"composition of the handle" and whether the electrodes were "between the two
middle fingers, the outer first and fourth finger, the thumb underneath and
the fingers on top? Where is the spaced relationship?" Summ. J. Hr'g Tr.
38:16-24. The district court also questioned whether having "small" hands as
opposed to "large" hands would affect the "spaced relationship" between the
live and common electrodes. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 40:2-6. Moreover, the district
court found nothing in evidence that provided how a skilled artisan would
have determined the appropriate parameters yielding the necessary "spaced
relationship" as recited by the '753 patent: "[W]hat [the expert] says is
that through trial and error, which he doesn't describe, one can find a
spaced relationship. That may be. But there's no description." Summ. J. Hr'g
Tr. 39:6-8. These inquiries however miss the mark in this instance because
they do not support an indefiniteness analysis.
To begin, we have not insisted that claims be plain on their face in order
to avoid a determination of invalidity for indefiniteness. Exxon,
265 F.3d at 1375. "If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though
the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which
reasonable persons will disagree, we have
[*902] held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness
grounds." Id. In addition, "[p]rovided that the claims are enabled, and no
undue experimentation is required, the fact that some experimentation may be
necessary to determine the scope of the claims does not render the claims
[***9] indefinite." Id. at 1379. When relevant values can be obtained, § 112 ¶ 2 is
satisfied. Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Indus., Inc., 417 F.3d 1356,
1360-61 (Fed.Cir.2005) ("Although the district court was concerned that the
claims encompass a range of volumes and thereby also of weights, § 112 ¶ 2
is satisfied when the relevant values can be 'calculated or measured.'")
(citation omitted). By embracing this standard, "we accord respect to the
statutory presumption of patent validity, and we protect the inventive
contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been
less than ideal." Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1375 (internal citations omitted); see
Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 1472
(Fed.Cir.1993) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 282). Therefore, objections relating to
the mere fact that there may be some need for experimentation to determine
the scope of the claims carry little weight.
Likewise, the district court's objections to the claims as written do not
support imprecision of the claims. Rather, the objections are based on the
premise that the '753 patent does not include disclosure sufficiently
commensurate with the scope of the claims. These objections, if relevant,
provide grounds for invalidity under § 112, ¶ 1 and not § 112 ¶ 2,[fn4] As
A patent claim to a fishing pole would not be invalid on
indefiniteness grounds if it contained a limitation requiring that
the pole be "at least three feet long," even though a 50 foot long
fishing pole would not be very practical. By the same token, there
is nothing indefinite about the claim language at issue in this case
simply because it covers some embodiments that may be inoperable.
Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1382; Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696, 706 (Fed. Cir.1998) (rejecting expert testimony
stating generally that a "digital detector" was not adequately disclosed in
the patent and could not be built by those of ordinary skill as relevant
only to the sufficiency of the written description [**1562] to enable the practice of
the invention of the claims); Miles Labs., Inc., v. Shandon, Inc.,
997 F.2d 870, 875, (Fed.Cir.1993) (same). Breadth is not indefiniteness.
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1340-1
(Fed.Cir.2005). Hence, inquiries as to the size of the users' hands,
placement of fingers, and the "composition of the handle" may be relevant,
if at all, to issues that relate to enablement under § 112, ¶ 1, not
indefiniteness under § 112, ¶ 2, because they are directed to the
operability of varying embodiments of the claimed heart rate monitor, not to
the precision of the claims at issue. Accordingly, these objections do not
address the inherent parameters set forth in the intrinsic evidence.
Still, Nautilus seeks support in Halli-burton. In Halliburton, the
invention at issue was a "fragile gel" that was used in drilling.
514 F.3d at 1246-47. This court found that the patent-at-issue did not
[*903] how the claimed "fragile gel" performed differently than the disclosed prior
art, such as "how much more quickly the gels broke when stress was imposed,
or how much more quickly the gels reformed when stress was removed."
Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1253. Halliburton's failure to distinguish the
fragileness of the drilling fluids of the invention from the close prior
[***10] art, according to this court, was fatal because it did not limit on what was
invented beyond the prior art. Id. For example, the court noted that the
fluids of the invention may provide less resistance to shearing (i.e., break
more quickly) than the prior art fluids, but the degree of improved speed,
the court said, remained ambiguous. Id. Thus, this court held that it was
unclear whether a skilled artisan would have interpreted this claim as
having an upper bound of fragility. Id.
Halliburton is distinguishable. Here, the claimed apparatus has inherent
parameters where the "spaced relationship" cannot be larger than the width
of a user's hand. Additionally, it has been shown that skilled artisans can
readily ascertain the bounds of the "spaced relationship" through tests
using standard equipment. Thus, the "upper bound" that was lacking in
Halliburton is found here. As a result, Halliburton fails to support
Rather, this case is analogous to Star Scientific II. There, the disputed
term was "controlled environment" as applied to the practice of tobacco
curing and "whether a person of ordinary skill would know how to establish a
controlled environment to perform the claimed method." Star Scientific II,
655 F.3d at 1373-74. This court held that the fact that the patents-at-issue
did not give exact numbers measuring humidity, temperature, and airflow in a
conventional curing barn was not dispositive. Id. at 1374. On the contrary,
this court found there was evidence showing that "a person of skill in the
art of tobacco curing would possess adequate understanding to manipulate
these variables to create a controlled environment." Id. Further, because
conventional curing varied depending on the conditions for each cure,
specific numerical values were found not necessary for one skilled in the
art to implement conventional curing. Id. Hence, "controlled environment"
was held not insolubly ambiguous.
Like Star Scientific II, the record shows that the variables here,
including the spacing, size, shape, and material affecting the "spaced
relationship" between the electrodes, can be determined by those skilled in
the art. Thus, "spaced relationship" cannot be said to be insolubly
[3] Contrary to the district court's decision and to Nautilus's contention on
appeal, this court's jurisprudence does not proscribe drafting or defining
claims in relation to their functions. Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard
Register Co., 229 F.3d 1091, 1111 (Fed.Cir.2000) ("We note that there is
nothing wrong with defining the dimensions of a device in terms of the
environment in which it is to be used."); see also Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2010) ("[T]he 'for decoding'
language . . . is properly construed as a limitation, and not merely
statement of purpose or intended use for the invention, because 'decoding'
is the essence or a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention.").
That is, "claims are not necessarily indefinite for using functional
language." Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2008). Indeed, functional language in a
means-plus-function format is explicitly [***11] authorized by statute.
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Functional language may also be used to
[*904] limit the claims without having the means-plus-function format.
Microprocessor Enhancement Corp., 520 F.3d at 1375.
Yet, the district court found the evidence consisting of test results and
their corresponding [**1563] references to "substantial removal of EMG signals"
conclusory because, according to the court, Biosig failed to show how it
conducted its tests that allegedly illustrate a "spaced relationship"
between the electrodes and the substantial removal of EMG signals. In
particular, the district court found fault with the experts' references to
the function of the claim term only, and it ultimately held that "this is
all a description of the desired result and not a description of any
invention . . . and, therefore, violates the requirement of specificity in
Section 112." Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 42:25-13:4.
Courts often refer to the context in which the patented invention is
claimed to ascertain its scope. Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir.2005) ("It is therefore entirely proper to
consider the functions of an invention in seeking to determine the meaning
of particular claim language."). Hence, to determine the proper meaning of
"spaced relationship," we must refer to "spaced relationship" in the context
of the intrinsic evidence, including the claim language, specification, and
prosecution history. The district court viewed "spaced relationship" in a
vacuum by choosing to turn a blind eye to the functional aspects of claim 1,
e.g., how "spaced relationship" contributes to the removal of noise signals,
such as EMG signals, and the overall capabilities of the claimed heart rate
monitor. However, without context, it would be impossible to ascertain "what
the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim,"
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250
(Fed.Cir.1998), and to examine the patent from the perspective of a person
skilled in the art, e.g., Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.,
257 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2001). Thus, to the extent the district court
failed to consider Biosig's evidence based on its reasoning that the
evidence spoke only to the "function of the claim," this was error.
Nautilus makes a related contention that the claims at issue are invalid
as they impermissibly claim both an apparatus and a method of use.
Specifically, Nautilus contends that claim 1 recites a heart rate monitor
and a required step that a user holds the monitor. According to Nautilus, it
is unclear whether the alleged infringement occurs when one makes a heart
rate monitor having the recited structural elements, or whether infringement
allegedly occurs when the user actually holds the handle and contacts the
electrodes. This contention is unpersuasive.
The '753 patent recites apparatus claims with functional limitations that
describe the capability of substantially removing EMG signals. See, e.g.,
'753 patent col. 5 l. 16 — col. 6 l. 15. Indeed, claim 1 of the '753 patent
is clearly limited to a heart rate monitor possessing the recited structure
that is capable of substantially removing EMG signals. It is not indefinite.
[***12] Accordingly, this case fails to invoke our decision in IPXL Holdings, LLC v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed.Cir.2005) (holding claims at issue as
indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method
The only issue on this appeal is the summary judgment of indefiniteness.
Other aspects of the defense of patent invalidity, although raised in the
district court, are not before us, and may be considered on remand. We
[*905] court's invalidity determination and remand for further proceedings.
[fn1] Fujisaki relates to a system for measuring heart pulse rate, and more
particularly, to "a heart pulse rate measuring system having a pair of grip
sensors adapted to be gripped with both hands for sensing heart pulse
signals." Fujisaki, col. 1 ll. 5-9. "Each of the grip sensors is composed of
two conductive cylindrical electrodes arranged in an axially aligned
relationship and electrically insulated from each other." Id. col. 1 ll.
45-48. "The electric circuit includes a differential amplifier having inputs
from the grip sensors for amplifying the difference between the heart pulse
signals. . . ." Id. col. 1 ll. 48-51.
[fn2] Even though the district court issued a claim construction order,
which included a construction of the disputed term, "spaced relationship,"
the record reflects the district court nonetheless determined that "space
relationship" was ambiguous, and therefore, found Biosig's contentions
pertaining to this term unpersuasive. J.A. 1391:15-21 (August 11, 2011
Markman Hearing) ("And we are going on to say, the spaced relationship
arises from trial and error placements of the two electrodes on the
cylindrical bar. Once placed they're in a space relationship. That spaced
relationship must be greater than the width of each electrode. What I've
done will confuse the jury and it may set up Mr. Milcetic for a ruling of
invalidity. Fair warning.") (emphasis added); J.A. 2819:16-2820:1 (February
22, 2012 Summary Judgment Hearing) ("THE COURT: So he said a space[d]
relationship can be anything. It could be this or it could be something
else. MR. GERINGER: And, your Honor, at the time, it was Mr. Bonella's
colleague, I believe, Mr. Milcetic, but your Honor warned them that you
didn't want them to fall into a trap. THE COURT: Right. MR. GERINGER: That
construing it in a way that embraces ambiguity could lead to invalidity
through vagueness. THE COURT: And now you're trying to take advantage of
that right now.") (emphases added).
[fn3] Paragraph 2 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with newly designated §
112(b) when § 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), Pub.L.
No. 112-29, took effect on September 16, 2012. Nevertheless, the preAIA
version of § 112 applies because the '753 patent issued prior to that date.
[fn4] 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 generally relates to the sufficiency of the
written descriptions of patents, including enablement, and states in
relevant part: "The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such
full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same. . . . "
I join the court's reversal of the judgment on appeal and its remand of
the case for further proceedings. I write separately, however, because,
while I agree with the court that the district court erred in holding claims
1 and 11 of the '753 patent invalid by reason of indefiniteness, I would
rest that ruling on a more limited analysis. I therefore respectfully
In Part II of the Discussion section of its opinion, the court correctly
sets forth our law on indefiniteness. In short, a claim is indefinite (1)
when it is not amenable to construction or (2) when, even if it can be
construed, "the construction remains insolubly ambiguous, meaning it fails
to provide sufficient clarity [delineating the metes] and bounds of the
claim to one of skill in the art," Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2011). See Datamize, LLC v.
Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005) ("Only claims
'not amenable to construction' or 'insolubly ambiguous' are indefinite.");
see also Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357,
1371 (Fed.Cir.2008) ("In and of itself, a reduction of the meaning of a
claim term into words is not dispositive [**1564] of whether the term is definite. .
. . And if reasonable efforts at claim construction result in a definition
that does not provide sufficient particularity and clarity to inform skilled
artisans of the bounds of the claim, the claim is insolubly ambiguous and
invalid for indefiniteness.") (internal citations omitted). As the court
concludes, neither of these two grounds for indefiniteness exists in this
First, the "spaced relationship" limitation plainly was amenable to
construction. The district court construed the two recitations of "in spaced
relationship with each other" in claim 1 to mean that "there is a defined
relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode on one side
of the cylindrical bar and the same or a different defined relationship
between the live electrode and the common electrode on the other side of the
cylindrical bar." See Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., No.
10-cv-7722, slip op. at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2011) (Dkt. 32, "Summary Order
Memorializing Court's Patent Claim Term Constructions After a Markman
Hearing"). Neither Biosig nor Nautilus disputes that the district court did,
in fact, construe the "spaced relationship" limitation.
Second, the court's construction provided sufficient clarity to one of
skill in the art as to the metes and bounds of the "spaced relationship"
limitation. Put most simply, the district court construed that limitation [***13] to
require "defined relationships," between the live electrode and the common
electrode on each side of the cylindrical bar.[fn1] What that construction
means is that, on each side of the cylindrical bar, there is a fixed spatial
relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode. And the
court correctly states that the intrinsic evidence relating to the '753
patent "discloses certain inherent parameters of the claimed apparatus,
which to a skilled artisan may be sufficient to understand the metes and
bounds of 'spaced relationship'." See Majority Op. at 899. In my view, along
[*906] subsequent rejection of Nautilus's reliance on Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed.Cir.2008); and IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed.Cir.2005), that is all that is needed
to put this case to rest.
My concern with the balance of the court's analysis is that it presumes a
functional linkage between the "spaced relationship" limitation and the
removal of EMG signals. In other words, the analysis proceeds as if the
"spaced relationship" limitation itself — rather than other limitations of
claim 1 — included a functional requirement to remove EMG signals. See
Majority Op. at 901 ("[A] skilled artisan could apply a test and determine
the 'spaced relationship' as pertaining to the function of substantially
removing EMG signals."); id. at 899 ("The functionality of the claimed heart
rate monitor as recited in claim 1, described in the specification, and
which provided the basis for overcoming the PTO's office action rejections
during reexamination, sheds further light on the meaning of 'spaced
relationship.'"). Indeed, the parties to this appeal and the district court
seem to presume the same. The language of the "spaced relationship"
limitation, however, does not contain a functional requirement:
said first half in spaced relationship with each other; a second
live electrode and a second common electrode mounted on said second
half in spaced relationship with each other
'753 patent col. 5 ll. 28-33. In addition, as seen above, the district
court's construction of the "spaced relationship" limitation does not
include any functional language related to the removal of EMG signals, and
Nautilus has not conditionally cross-appealed that construction.
In my view, we should not address a functional limitation included neither
in the "spaced relationship" limitation itself nor in the district court's
construction of that limitation. By allowing the functional limitation of
EMG removal from elsewhere in claim 1 to color our analysis of the
definiteness of the "spaced relationship" limitation, it seems to me we
address an issue that is not currently before us.
[fn1] Although this construction may be seen as broad, as the court notes,
"[b]readth is not indefiniteness." See Majority Op. at 902 (citing
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1340-41
(Fed.Cir.2005)).