Soft language such as “approximately” can provide wiggle room for different modes of operation. Here, for example, the claimed communication cycle invention was not found to be inoperable without the hub sending start-time information to a remote device before each cycle begins because the specification explicitly contemplated remote devices functioning by knowing only “approximately” when to expect the start time. It may therefore be best to describe various features in the specification with similar soft language (e.g., “approximately”) when more precise operation is not critical.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to a protocol for controlling wireless network communications between a hub and remote devices. To conserve battery power, the protocol defines “communication cycles” and recites “the hub transmitting information to the remotes to establish the communication cycle and a plurality of predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle.”
Issue(s): Whether, in order to be operable, the claimed invention requires that starting-time information for each cycle (perhaps also duration information) be sent to the remotes before the cycle begins.
Holding(s): No. “[T]he claim language at issue does not require that the cycle’s starting time and duration be communicated to the remotes even earlier, i.e., before the communication cycle begins. … [T]he specification explicitly contemplates the remotes functioning by knowing ‘approximately when to expect frames transmitted from the hub.’ [] [The accused infringer] has not explained why it is insufficient for the remotes to know roughly ‘when to expect’ an upcoming cycle to begin, not its exact starting time, and why that information cannot be supplied by providing a cycle’s starting time and duration during a given cycle.”