In a recent claim construction ruling on a single claim term, Judge Andrews rejected an indefiniteness challenge based on the lack of "specific numerical boundaries" in the claim.
The technology at issue in Commscope Technologies LLC v. Rosenberger Site Solutions, LLC, C.A. No. 20-1053, involves antennas used in cell phone towers. The patent-in-suit is directed to solving the problem of distortion in multi-band antennas by "preventing the antenna elements intended to receive high bands from transmitting low band signals."
The defendants argued that the below claim language is indefinite:
The higher band radiating element of claim 14, wherein the common mode tuning circuit comprises a transmission line connecting the first node to the stalk, and wherein a length of the transmission line is selected such that it appears as a high impedance at an operating frequency of the higher band radiating element.
In essence, the high impedance of the length of transmission line described in the claim causes current to flow on an alternate path, toward a capacitor.
The defendants argued that the reference to "high impedance" rendered the claim indefinite because the patent did not disclose "objective boundaries" as to what qualifies as "high" impedance.
Judge Andrews sided with the plaintiff, who had argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that "high impedance" refers to "high impedance relative to the current's intended path of the capacitor":
I do not think the specification needs to describe numerical boundaries for this term to be definite. It is enough that a POSA who understands the objectives of the patent from reading the specification would be able to identify what a "high impedance" would be for any particular embodiment of the invention.
Judge Andrews included the concept of relativity in the construction he adopted for the term: "an impedance that is high relative to the impedance of the first capacitor at the operating frequency of the higher band." Defendants argued that "relative to" did not find support in the claim, but Judge Andrews found that "the claim language 'it appears as' can . . . convey a sense of relativeness to the POSA."
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
