Appeal No. 95-4486 Page 4
Application No. 08/158,713
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
The examiner's focus during examination of claims for
compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.
§ 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.
Furthermore, the 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007