Appeal No. 95-2783 Page 4 Application 08/026,504 after-final amendment does not solve the problem or improve the clarity of the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Indefiniteness 1. Claims must reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both of the use and the scope of the invention, and their language must be as precise as the subject matter permits. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985). An examiner must permit applicants wide latitude in claiming subject matter as they see fit, but the examiner must work to ensure that claims are as clear and precise as possible. 2. In the case before us, it seems unlikely that one skilled in the art would miss Appellant's intent. At the same time, neither Appellant nor the examiner were able to arrive at language that would eliminate the technical inaccuracy. Consequently, the claims are not as precise as the subject matter allows. 3. At the hearing, we discussed the following formulation with counsel for Appellant: 0.4 fw/mm < f3/f2 < 0.8 fw/mm where the first and third terms are divided by millimeters, the unit for fw, so that all of the expressions are nowPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007