Opinion ID: 919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Definiteness of the term POL regulator

Text: Artesyn asserts, as an alternative basis for reversing the district court's judgment, that the district court committed error in finding the term POL regulator not indefinite. A determination of indefiniteness is reviewed de novo. See Young, 492 F.3d at 1344. Pursuant to § 112 of the Patent Act, to be sufficiently definite, a patent specification must 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. To comport with § 112's definiteness requirement, the boundaries of the claim, as construed by the court, must be discernible to a skilled artisan based on the language of the claim, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant field of art. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249-51 (Fed.Cir.2008). When a claim is not amenable to construction or [is] insolubly ambiguous it is indefinite. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005). However, a claim is not indefinite merely because it poses a difficult issue of claim construction. Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001). Rather, if the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusions may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds. Id. at 1373. Here, the term POL regulator is not indefinite. The intrinsic evidence of the '125 patent supports that POL regulators are well known devices whose locations and functions relative to other components in the power system are understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Verve, 311 F.3d at 1119-20 (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); Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1379-81 (finding for a period sufficient definite because the limitation was expressed in terms that were reasonably precise in light of the subject matter). Because a person having ordinary skill in the art would know where to place the POL regulator and how to use it, we find that the claim term POL regulator is not indefinite and does not render the claims of the '125 patent indefinite.