Appeal No. 2002-0993 Page 5
Application No. 09/368,781
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.
With this as background, we analyze the specific reasons set forth by the
examiner for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
With respect to claim 212, the examiner pointed to various typographic errors as
rendering the claim indefinite (answer, p. 4). We agree. The appellants may be correct
that the substance (i.e., essence) of claim 21 is clear, however, the meaning of claim 21
in its entirety as currently worded is not sufficiently clear so as to define the metes and
bounds thereof with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly, the
2 Claim 21 reads as follows:
A wire cutter according to claim 15 wherein said means for non-threadedly connecting
said inserts to said lever arms comprises said inserts being comprised at: least partially of a
magnetic material and at least a portion of said cutting ends bein21. A wire cutter according to
claim 15 wherein said g made of a material such that said inserts and said cutting ends are
magnetically attracted to one another.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007