ambiguous, any attempt to resolve the ambiguity only emphasizes the inconsistency between the
claim language and the '762 specification (motions 1 and 2 at 15, motion 3 at 17).
Van Engelen makes no real attempt to explain or prove that the involved claims 4-6 are
ambiguous in the first place. Van Engelen seems to invite the panel to make an independent
determination that the claims are ambiguous. We decline the invitation. It is the role of advocate,
not judge, to present a detailed analysis as to why the claims are, on their face, ambiguous. Van
Engelen bases the rest of its discussion on a presumption that the claims are ambiguous, and
discusses why Lee's involved specification fails to resolve the ambiguity. However, even that
analysis is flawed.
Van Engelen argues that Lee's application is devoid of a (1) discussion of how the frames
are "dynamically isolated" from one another (motion 1), (2) description of a machine frame
which, seen parallel to a vertical Z-direction, supports in that order a radiation source (motion 2),
or (3) description of a stationary part of the drive unit fastened to a second frame (motion 2). In
essence, Van Engelen argues that Lee's claims 4-6 are not enabled or described, and thus are
indefinite. However, the written description requirement and the enablement requirement are
separate and distinct from the definiteness requirement. "Definiteness and enablement are
analytically distinct requirements." Process Control Corp, v. Hydgeclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350,
1358 n.2, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1034 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Even if the written description does not
enable the claim, the claim language itself may still be definite. Union Pac. Res. Co. v.
ChesMeake Enerpgy CoM., 236 F.3d 684, 692, 57 USPQ2d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Since
van Engelen has failed to apply the correct standard and sufficiently demonstrate that Lee claims
4-6 are indefinite, this part of van Engelen motions I and 2 is denied.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007