Opinion ID: 780586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim Definiteness

Text: 28 Sunglass Hut argues that the phrase vivid colored appearance appearing in claim 1 is indefinite. Even if vividness is based on the disclosed differential effect, according to Sunglass Hut, one skilled in the art cannot tell which values of differential effect qualify as vivid and which do not. Sunglass Hut further contends that the district court did not and could not define the bounds of the phrase. 29 Oakley responds that the phrase can be defined from the structure, formula, and examples disclosed in the patent. Oakley cites the proposition that compliance with section 112, paragraph 2, does not require a particular number as a cutoff. According to Oakley, the specification's numerical examples, including some values of differential effect that do create a vivid colored appearance and one that does not, are sufficient. 30 We agree with Oakley that Sunglass Hut has not raised a substantial question as to whether the phrase vivid colored appearance renders the claims indefinite in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. That paragraph provides: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2000). The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. That determination requires a construction of the claims according to the familiar canons of claim construction. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80, 64 USPQ2d 1945, 1949 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citations omitted). 31 One of those canons is that claims are construed as one skilled in the art would understand them in light of the specification of which they are a part. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1575, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed.Cir.1986). Indeed, a patentee may be his or her own lexicographer by defining the claim terms. Another one of those canons is that a patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802-03, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). In Marosi, we held that the phrase essentially free of alkali metal was not indefinite, where the specification defined it as containing only residual impurities, such as 4 ppm (parts per million). Id. at 802, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ at 292. Marosi disclaimed a level of 3819 ppm disclosed in the prior art, and the PTO took the position that one skilled in the art would not know where to draw the line between 4 ppm and 3819 ppm. Id. We sided with Marosi, explaining that his invention does not reside in such a number and that a skilled artisan would draw that line between unavoidable impurities and essential ingredients. Id. at 803, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ at 292. 32 Unlike the situation in Marosi, the numerical value of the differential effect in this case is a distinguishing feature over the prior art. That is so because the language of the claim associates vividness with the differential effect, and the specification presents examples of numerical values of the differential effect that either qualify as vivid or do not. More precisely, the language of the claim itself confirms that the lens's vivid colored appearance results directly from the differential effect. '902 patent, col. 24, ll. 62-64 (reciting said differential effect ... producing a vivid colored appearance in claim 1). Moreover, the claim itself defines the lens's structural attributes that produce the differential effect. Id. at col. 24, ll. 67-69 (reciting the reflectance of said semireflective layer and the thickness of said dielectric layer producing ... a differential effect). 33 Accordingly, the specification presents a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples in which the differential effect is either great enough to produce a vivid colored appearance or not. Those values that qualify as producing a vivid colored appearance range from 5.45% to 405% under various circumstances, whereas the only disclosed value of maximum differential effect that does not produce a vivid colored appearance is 2.3%. Id. at col. 9, ll. 59-65. Thus, while the specification does not indicate so explicitly, the dividing line must be somewhere between 2.3% and 5.45%. Although the difference between those values is seemingly slight, and comparison of one differential effect value to another may present an apples-to-oranges problem due to the different reference intensities involved, the specification purports to indicate that the difference is significant, brushing aside any comparison difficulties. See '902 patent, col. 11, ll. 5-16 (purporting that differential effects of 5.45% above &#955; D and 25.96% above &#955; A are  much larger than the ~ 2.2% found for the 90% reflecting case (emphasis added)); see also id. at col. 12, ll. 37-40 (purporting that 7.5% is much greater than that obtained (± 2.2%) for a 90% reflecting layer case (emphasis added)). Faced with those examples and comments, we conclude that one skilled in the art would, in reasonable likelihood, understand that a lens exhibiting a maximum differential effect not substantially greater than 2.2% does not have a vivid colored appearance. 34 Indeed, we conclude that one skilled in the art would interpret the phrase vivid colored appearance in light of the specification to require that the maximum differential effect equal or exceed about 5.45%, and we thus construe the phrase for purposes of the preliminary injunction. 35 That is not to say that Sunglass Hut cannot ultimately succeed on the merits of its indefiniteness argument later in the litigation, after further development of the record. We simply hold that, recognizing the presumption of validity and the fact that the '902 patent has already been subjected to reexamination, Oakley has at this point in the case shown that it is reasonably likely to withstand such a validity challenge.