The CAFC upheld the Board's claim interpretation, ruling that without a definition in the specification, the examiner's interpretation sufficed in determining patentability.
Mazed's arguments regarding the definitions of 'engineered,' 'coupled,' and 'biocompatible polymer' were rejected as the claim terms lacked necessary definitions in the patent specification.
The CAFC noted that the term 'engineered' was not defined in the application, implying that interpretations made should encompass broader potential meanings without restrictions.
Regarding 'biocompatible polymer,' the CAFC concluded that the Board's interpretation was valid, stating that the claims do not necessitate distinctions that Mazed suggested.
Collection
[
|
...
]