Appeal No. 1995-3690 Page 6
Application No. 08/000,342
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. 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.
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the
examiner of the claims on appeal.
The appellants specification defines a tag as a:
. . . mechanism . . . which is used to
identify speculative instructions grouped
together. Every speculative instruction in
a group is labeled with an identical tag.
[specification at page 13].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007