Appeal No. 1997-2026
Application 08/317,108
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.
Here, we find that the steps which the Examiner has
questioned above in regard to the vagueness of the claim 24
(same as for the lack of enablement rejection) are properly
defined.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. As other
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007