Appeal No. 1996-3284
Application 08/154,864
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art. [Id].
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.
Thus, for example, the failure to provide explicit
antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim
indefinite. As stated above, if the scope of a claim would be
reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the
claim is not indefinite. See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144,
1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
Furthermore, Appellant may use functional language,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007