Appeal No. 1997-0440 Application No. 08/582,237 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, 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, 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, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (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. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 We note that a prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007