How does the MPEP address the use of relative terminology in patent claims?

The MPEP addresses the use of relative terminology in patent claims in section 2173.05(b). While this is not directly part of the ‘New Terminology’ section, it’s closely related and important for claim drafting. The key points are:

• Acceptability of relative terms: The MPEP states, “The use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
• Need for clarity: However, the specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree. As noted in the manual, “When a term of degree is presented in a claim, first a determination is to be made as to whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.”
• Context matters: The acceptability of a relative term often depends on its context in the claim and the state of the art. The MPEP advises, “If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree).”

Applicants should be cautious when using relative terms and ensure that the specification provides sufficient guidance for interpreting these terms to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).

To learn more:

• relative terminology
• patent claims
• claim language
• definiteness