Ex parte KATO - Page 6




          Appeal No. 1999-2454                                       Page 6           
          Application No. 08/656,106                                                  


          § 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the                     
          threshold requirements of clarity and precision, not whether                
          more suitable language or modes of expression are available.                
          Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of                
          terms is permitted even though the claim language is not as                 
          precise as the examiner might desire.  If the scope of the                  
          invention sought to be patented can be determined from the                  
          language of the claims with a reasonable degree of certainty,               
          a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                     
          paragraph, is inappropriate.                                                


               Furthermore, appellants may use functional language,                   
          alternative expressions, negative limitations, or any style of              
          expression or format of claim which makes clear the boundaries              
          of the subject matter for which protection is sought.  As                   
          noted by the Court in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 160 USPQ               
          226 (CCPA 1971), a claim may not be rejected solely because of              
          the type of language used to define the subject matter for                  
          which patent protection is sought.                                          


               With this as background, we turn to the rejection under                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007