Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 8
Application No. 08/089,810
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 cannot 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 appropriate.
Thus, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for
terms does not always render a claim indefinite. As stated
above, if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable
by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.
See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
1992).
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007