Cat Claw Removal Patent Using the Word "Near" Was Sufficiently Definite

Case: Young v. Lumenis, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 06-1455, 6/27/07)

The One Sentence Summary: In a patent dispute about a patent for a technique for removing cat claws, the patent was sufficiently definite when it used the word "near" in describing location of an incision, and there was no inequitable conduct when the materials were ultimately submitted to the PTO in time for consideration in the reexamination.


Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The term "near" was sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 to distinctly claim the invention. The term would have been understood by one of skill in the art, and it distinguished the invention from the prior art.
• Summary judgment invalidating the patent for inequitable conduct was reversed. In the reexamination proceedings proceeding in parallel with the litigation, there were no misrepresentations in the attorney's arguments interpreting the prior art and arguing against a rejection. Moreover, there was no failure to disclose where the testimony
  allegedly withheld from the PTO (but submitted after the inequitable conduct motion was filed) was provided months before the PTO's final office action so the examiner had an opportunity to consider it.