For those of us who not part of the inside-the-beltway patent intelligentsia, Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O Patent Blog has been kind enough to post a transcript of the oral argument in Phillips v. AWH before the Federal Circuit. But when you read between the lines, it appears that all of the excitement may (or may not) be short-lived:
As noted by Hal Wegner, the "transcript does not capture the visual image that trumps everything else!" A major highlight of the argument was the change in facial expression of many panel members when they heard appellant's counsel (Manthie) point to chapter, line and verse of the patent document on his easel to support an alternate embodiment. It appeared that those panel members may have been pursuaded that the term 'baffle' should not have been limited, even when using the specification as guide.Could a clearly erroneous factual determination ultimately decide the whole case?