About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) | Main | USPTO China IP Legislation and Case Law Update »

July 21, 2022


The last bit of this article appears to confuse breadth and definiteness.

I find that shocking coming from this blog.

Agree that breadth and definiteness are not the same thing, but that's not the point. The term as used in the claim and defined by the court still (in my opinion) fails to provide a clear understanding of what the claim does or does not cover.

Dr. Borella,

I do not understand your reply. You appear to agree with the statement I made, and then turn around and merely parrot the opposite.

If one is going to claim [sic] that the claim fails to provide a clear understanding, then something OTHER THAN breadth needs to be advanced as the substantial reason for that lack of understanding.

So, here, what is that substantial reason?

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29