Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 7
Application No. 08/706,767
§ 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 can 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 inappropriate.
Furthermore, the appellants 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, 213-14,
169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007