Appeal No. 1996-3525 Page 6
Application No. 08/089,595
"alternative language should be avoided when it defines
dissimilar structure."
The appellants argue (reply brief, pp. 2-3) that claim 2
is definite. Specifically, the appellants contend that
alternative language is not inherently subject to rejection
and that claim 2 is directed to "a sort of Markush group."
We agree with the appellants that claim 2 is definite.
Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no
uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope
or clarity of the claims. In this instance, the examiner has
not expressed any rationale as to why the metes and bounds of
the claimed invention is not known with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. In our view, the metes and
bounds of the claimed invention would be known with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Accordingly, claim 2 is definite and the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007