The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate a relationship among claim elements that is otherwise made clear by context. Here, for example, the claimed “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments” was found to require that a single request must correspond to at least two investments regardless of the fact that “a” also permits multiple such requests to be initiated while still be covered by the claim language. “[T]he question is whether ‘a’ can serve to negate what is required by the language following ‘a’ … It cannot.” This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to an overly broad interpretation of the relationship between “a” given element and other elements.
Background / Facts: The patents on appeal from reexamination proceedings at the PTO are directed to methods and systems for performing statistical analyses of investment data. The claims recite initiating “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments.” The prior art describes a request that calls for a statistical analysis of a single investment, but multiple such requests can be initiated in sequence to cover two or more investments.
Issue(s): Whether the indefinite article “a” before “statistical analysis request” renders the claim language broad enough to encompass the use of two requests to accomplish an analysis of the two or more investments, rather than requiring that a single request must correspond to at least two investments.
Holding(s): No. “[W]hile ‘a’ sometimes is non-restrictive as to number, permitting the presence of more than one of the objects following that indefinite article, context matters even as to whether the word has that meaning. [] And here the question is not whether there can be more than one request in a claim-covered system: there can. Rather, the question is whether ‘a’ can serve to negate what is required by the language following ‘a’: a ‘request’ (a singular term) that ‘correspond[s]’ to ‘two or more selected investments.’ It cannot. For a dog owner to have ‘a dog that rolls over and fetches sticks,’ it does not suffice that he have two dogs, each able to perform just one of the tasks. In the present case, no matter how many requests there may be, no matter the variety of the requests the system may receive, the system must be adapted to receive a request that itself corresponds to at least two investments.”