Appeal No. 2006-1179 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/242,532
above, if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable
by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.
See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1992).
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.
With this as background, we analyze the specific rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of
claims 41-57 and 62. The examiner’s position (answer, page 5) is
to the effect that the language “if the price of the predefined
relative indication satisfies the price of the received order” is
indefinite because the claim language is conditional and because
the claim language does not set forth how the system will perform
if the price does not satisfy the price of the received order.
The examiner adds (answer, page 10) that “while broad language is
appropriate, ‘if’ statements without an associated ‘if not’ is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007