Clarity Requirement
(Conclusion)
Clarity Requirement is admitted.
The claim language “a side wall integrally forming” is interpreted by considering the description in the Description, and it was decided that there was no lack of clarity requirement.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/650/002650.pdf