Appeal No. 1998-2817
Application No. 08/455,366
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
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. 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007