Appeal No. 2004-1231
Application 09/481,224
claimed subject matter as amended. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
We now address the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. A fundamental
principle contained in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is that
Appellants are entitled to be their own lexicographers. Appellants
may define in the claims what Appellants regard as their invention
essentially in whatever terms Appellants choose so long as the
terms are not used in ways that are contrary to accepted meanings
in the art. 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, 212-13, 160 USPQ 226, 229 (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. “The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether
those skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claim
when the claim is read in light of the rest of the Appellants’
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007