PTO May Reject Claims As Indefinite If Not As Reasonably Precise As The Circumstances Permit

In In re Packard, No. 13-1204 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's rejection of all pending claims of Thomas G. Packard's ("Packard") U.S. Patent Application No. 12/004,324 ("the '324 application") as indefinite, holding that the PTO may reject preissuance claims as indefinite if not "as reasonably precise as the circumstances permit[]."  Slip op. at 12.

The '324 application covers a coin change holder.  The examiner rejected the claims as indefinite, explaining that several claim limitations lacked an antecedent basis or were otherwise unclear, but Packard failed to adequately respond.  The Board affirmed the rejection under the review standard set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(e) that "[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."  Id. at 5 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).