In re: Packard, No. 13-1204 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The patent application, filed before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, replaced paragraph 2 of 35 U.S.C. 112 in 2012, covers a coin change holder, a plastic card with four channels on its surface for storing different types of coins. An examiner rejected the application for lack of adequate written description, claim indefiniteness, and obviousness. The inventor cancelled his original claims and substituted a new claims 28 through 37. The examiner, in his final rejection, found claims 28-33 and 37 invalid for lack of written description, claims 28-37 invalid for indefiniteness, and claims 28-37 invalid for obviousness. The examiner noted that, while the claims required that the card be attached to a wallet, this feature was not supported by the written description, and that several claim limitations failed to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they lacked an antecedent basis or were otherwise unclear. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the written description and indefiniteness rejections, reversing the obviousness rejection. With respect to indefiniteness, the Board applied the review standard of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 2173.05(e). The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Board misapplied the standard of indefiniteness by determining that the claims “contain[ ] words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” and that, had the Board applied an “insolubly ambiguous” standard, those claims would not have been held indefinite.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.