Appeal No. 2006-1179 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/242,532
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
determination, the definiteness of the language employed in the
claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted 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, 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 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.
Thus, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for
terms does not always render a claim indefinite. As stated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007