Appeal No. 1998-1798 Page 7
Application No. 08/596,538
a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is inappropriate.
Furthermore, the appellant 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.
For the reasons stated above, claims 1 and 17 are
considered by us to be definite, as required by the second
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 to 9, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness issues
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007