Appeal No. 1998-1798 Page 6
Application No. 08/596,538
and particularity. Specifically, we find the functional
language set forth in the wherein clause of claim 1 and the
whereby clause of claim 17 to be definite. In making this
determination, the definiteness of the language employed in
the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in
light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular
application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
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. If the scope of the
invention sought to be patented can be determined from the
language of the claims with a reasonable degree of certainty,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007