Appeal No. 2004-0214 Page 5
Application No. 09/446,516
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, 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.
As set forth on page 3 of the revised answer, the sole basis for this rejection is
that the phrase "in common for each check-out" as used at line 6 in independent claims
1 and 34 was indefinite.
In our view, the metes and bounds of the phrase "in common for each check-out"
can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In that
regard, as used in claims 1 and 34, the phrase means that each check-out in the store
shares one device for automatically issuing commercial advantage coupons.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007