United States Federal Circuit

It is a reasonable implementation of the patent examination responsibility, as applied to 35 U.S.C. section 112(b), for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, upon providing an applicant a well-grounded identification of clarity problems, to demand persuasive responses on pain of rejection, and here, because claimant did not offer a satisfactory response to well-grounded indefiniteness rejections in this case, his applied-for patent claims for a coin change holder was properly rejected as indefinite.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/06/2014
• Published 05/06/2014

Judges

• PER CURIAM

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel