United States Federal Circuit

A patent specification that teaches using the time quantity term "for a period sufficient" does not need to identify an upper or lower boundary for the prescribed period for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claims, so it is not invalid for indefiniteness.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/19/2001
• Published 09/19/2001

Judges

• BRYSON, Circuit Judge., Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• E. Edward Bruce,Covington & Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were Christopher N. Sipes, and Kevin C. Newsom.   Of counsel on the brief were Steven D. Glazer, James W. Quinn, Kevin McMahon, and Elizabeth S. Weiswasser, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of New York, New York. Of counsel were Matthew D. Powers, David J. Lender, and Peter Tu, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.


• For Appellees:
  
• Grace S. Karaffa, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee.   With her on the brief was Vito J. DiPietro, Director.   Of counsel on the brief were Thomas J. Byrnes, Richard T. Ruzich, and Ken B. Barrett, Attorneys.