Opinion ID: 209348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Indefiniteness Arguments

Text: The definiteness analysis requires a determination of whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696, 705 (Fed.Cir.1998) (quoting Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed.Cir.1993)). 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 held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds. Exxon Res. & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001). Definiteness is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. at 1376. Defendants first argue that selected stage of healing is indefinite because the specification does not explain how the selected stage is to be determined for particular wounds at particular times. Further, Defendants argue that whether a wound has progressed to a selected stage of healing is wholly subjective. However, KCI points out that the specification of the '643 patent provides several examples of selected stages of healing. '643 patent col.12 ll.47-54. Additionally, KCI submitted a declaration from one of the named inventors of the asserted patents explaining that a doctor of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the selected stage of healing may vary from wound to wound. While it may be true that the patentee's ability to articulate a definition supported by the specification ... does not end the inquiry, Defendants have not shown in this case that a person of skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of the term. See Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed.Cir.2008). Accordingly, we conclude that selected stage of healing is not insolubly ambiguous. See Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1375. Relying on Honeywell International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 341 F.3d 1332, 1339-40 (Fed.Cir. 2003), Defendants also argue that reduction in bacterial density in the wound by at least 50% is indefinite because there are several methods for measuring bacterial density, each of which may yield a drastically different result, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know which method to use. However, KCI responds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know which method to use because Example 2 of the '643 patent describes a particular method. '643 patent col.15 ll.58-65. We agree with KCI that Honeywell does not control where, as here, several methods for calculating reduction in bacterial density are available but the specification discloses one particular method. Thus, we conclude that reduction in bacterial density in the wound by at least 50% is not indefinite. Finally, Defendants argue that the claims reciting a screen are indefinite because a person of skill in the art would not know what overgrowth of tissue in the wound is or how a screen could prevent it. Defendants point to several parts of the record that allegedly present conflicting definitions of preventing overgrowth, such as preventing loculation, removing bacteria, removing dead tissue that sticks to the screen, and preventing the formation of scar tissue. KCI argues in response that one of the named inventors defined overgrowth as [g]rowth of granulation tissue above the surrounding uninjured tissue and explained that the screen prevented this by distribut[ing] the pressure within the wound. KCI also asserts that the allegedly conflicting definitions are not definitions of overgrowth at all. Instead, KCI argues, Defendants are pulling quotes from the inventors' deposition testimony about various complications of wound healing and attempting to mischaracterize them as definitions of overgrowth. In light of KCI's explanation of the record before us, we are not persuaded that this claim term is insolubly ambiguous. See Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1375. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's failure to find the term indefinite.