Appeal No. 1998-2476
Application No. 08/074,485
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, should be 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.
We have reviewed the comments and statements of the
examiner and the responses by appellants as outlined above.
Following the guidelines stated above, we conclude that the
examiner is not justified in finding the claims as indefinite.
Appellants’ responses to the various points raised by the
examiner are self- explanatory and fully understandable to an
artisan. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007