depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning.” Id. “If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.” Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir.2001). “By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of patent validity ... and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the draft ing of their patents has been less than ideal.” Id.; see also Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249-50 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that defendants have not met
holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard holding that an accused infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language the specification and the prosecution history as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence