Ex parte Vegas Amusements, Inc.

Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. In ex parte reexamination, where claims use the open-ended transition "comprising" and recite "a" processor device, the Board gives "a" its usual meaning of "one or more" under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and will limit it to "one and only one" only if the claim language or specification clearly establishes that limit. A specification's general preference for fewer processors, or disclosure of a single-CPU preferred embodiment, does not disclaim plural embodiments, and a patent owner who wants a narrower meaning had the opportunity and responsibility to amend the claims. No prior precedent directly addressed this issue, and the decision names no Board decision that it modifies. For the requester or examiner, it confirms that claims reciting "a" element in a "comprising" claim can be read on prior art with multiple such elements, so a multi-processor reference can anticipate. For the patent owner, it means that arguments for a "single" or "central" processor limit, based on a preferred embodiment or on stated disadvantages of multiple CPUs, will fail unless there is clear disclaimer, and the owner should have amended the claims. The Board relied on Federal Circuit authority including KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, and In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320. LEGAL TEST OR STANDARD: During reexamination, claims receive their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. "Comprising" makes the claim presumptively open-ended. The indefinite article "a" in an open-ended claim usually means "one or more". It is limited to a singular meaning only in rare circumstances, which must be clearly established, such as when the specification or claim language indicates "one and only one". Disclosure of a preferred or exemplary singular embodiment does not disclaim a plural embodiment. TRIGGERING FACTS: The patent owner appealed a final rejection in an ex parte reexamination and argued that "a game processor device" and "an interface processor device" mean a single, or "central", processor performing all game functionality. The claims used "comprising" and did not recite "single" or "central". The specification showed one CPU in a preferred embodiment and said multiple CPUs add cost, but it also disclosed an additional interface processor CPU. The claims were never amended to add the limit. KEY QUOTE: "If Vegas Amusement intended a special meaning reflecting that a "single" or "one and only one" such device be encompassed by its claims, the opportunity and responsibility to impose such a limitation was by amendment to the claims." (p. 10) PRIOR PRECEDENT AFFECTED: No prior precedential or informative decision is directly affected. PRACTICE TIP: If you want "a" to mean only one in a claim to be reexamined, amend the claim expressly, for example to recite "single". Do not rely on preferred-embodiment or background statements. As requester or examiner, point to the open-ended "comprising" and the "one or more" default, and to the absence of clear disclaimer, to read the claims on multi-component prior art.