Why Judges Hate Patents?
- a seat coupled to said swing arm and having an upper seating surface;
- said swing arm and said frame support post defining a reconfigurable swing area therebetween; and
- a shield coupled to said seat and extending upwardly from said seat and disposed between said reconfigurable swing area and said seating area.
With regard to the second limitation, the court was not persuaded by Graco's confusion over the inconsistent labelling of the area "A" in FIGs. 6-7 (above) between the swing arm (252) and the frame support post (210).
Finally, with regard to the last element, the district court found two parts of this claim limitation indefinite. The court first stated:
In order to foreclose any further confusion, the Federal Circuit kindly clarified "that 'upper seating surface' is by implication the antecedent basis for 'seating area.'"
"[A] shield coupled to said seat and extending upwardly from said seat" is
indefinite. It is unclear whether the shield is to be coupled with the seat
itself, the (undefined) "seating area", or the padded seat cover (if that is
what is meant by "upper seating surface.")
"[A]nd disposed between said reconfigurable swing area and said seating area" is indefinite. Seating area is nowhere defined in the patent. Fisher-Price's attempts to define the "upper seating surface" as the entire padded area and the "lower seating surface" as the underside of the swing was unconvincing and against the ordinary meaning of the terms.
Where does a patent attorney voluteer to become a Special Master in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania?