The plain and accepted meaning of strengthen requires an increase with greater protection—prefer evidence from a patent court

The Examiner responds that the Specification's description of "geometrical properties" of the axial slots "to minimize 'mixing loss' and extract low momentum fluids . . . appear[s] to contradict an accepted definition of 'strengthen' of 'to make stronger.'" Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also finds that "the [S]pecification does not describe such effects [(as a reduction in the blockage with an increased axial momentum and reduced pressure, or by the curvilinear shape)] "nor does the [S]pecification link the described effects to 'strengthening' the extracted flow.'" Id. at 3.

To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The issue of whether the written description requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Wang Labs, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The Specification discloses, with [*8] reference to Figure 4, that

discrete slots 96[] assist in delaying rotor stall by initially extracting weak tip flow through an aft segment 100 of a portion 58 of flow 50, also referred to herein as leakage flow, that is exposed to the rotor blade tip 81. The portion 58 of flow 50 is then recirculated and strengthened within each of the slots 96, and injected back into the main flow 50 ahead of the rotor blade 80 through the forward segment as a rejected flow 59.

Spec. P 36 (emphasis added). The Specification also discsloses that slots 96 facilitate "the conversion of the uselessness of leakage flows into useful flows to increase the stall margin." Id. P 35. Thus, the Specification satisfies the written description requirement, because the Specification describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claim limitation strengthen the extracted [compressed air] flow within the plurality of discrete axial slots . 4

[*9]

Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

Rejection II

The Examiner determines that the claim term "strengthen" is "not defined by the claims, the [S]pecification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. " Final Act. 6. More particularly, the Examiner determines that "the term 'strengthen' is a relative term which may have numerous definitions to one of ordinary skill in the in the context of 'strengthening a flow', i.e., increased flow velocity increased flow density, creation of a vortex within the flow, etc." Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes that "[w]ithout a proper definition of . . . the term 'strengthen' , the term may have multiple definitions, therefore rendering the scope of the claim indefinite." Id.

Appellant relies on the arguments presented supra with respect to Rejection I as support that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Br. 9-10.

Claim 1 recites, in [*10] relevant part, that the discrete axial slots are configured to extract a portion of a compressed air as an extracted flow, strengthen the extracted flow within such slots, and reinject the strengthened flow adjacent a rotor blade tip. Thus, in the context of the claims, we understand the claim term "strengthen" means that the extracted flow is greater relative to the portion of the compressed air that is initially extracted. 5 [[Footnote 5 begins]] An ordinary definition of the term "strengthen" is "to make stronger." https://www.merriam-webster .com/dictionary/strengthen (last visited July 29, 2019). An ordinary definition of the claim term "flow" is "to issue or move in a stream." Id. [[Footnote 5 ends]] However, the Examiner's determination is, more specifically, that it is unclear which parameter of the flow (i.e., velocity) is strengthened (or greater). Cf. Spec. P 5 ("[t]he operating range of an axial compressor is generally limited due to weak flow in rotor tips" ). Although Appellant argues supra that the parameter of flow that is strengthened is the "axial momentum, " 6 we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not identify a particular parameter of the flow that is strengthened. Notwithstanding, we determine that claim 1 reads on strengthening any parameter of the flow. However, breadth is not indefiniteness. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).