Clarity and conciseness of claims (Section 25(5)(b))

5.45 Section 25(5)(b) requires that the claim or claims shall be clear and concise. The test for clarity is whether the skilled person would have difficulty in understanding the language used (Strix Ltd v Otter Controls Ltd [1995] RPC 607). The requirement applies to both the claims as a whole and to individual claims.

5.46 However, no objection should be raised merely on the basis that a clearer definition could be provided. The key consideration is whether the skilled person together with the surrounding common general knowledge in the art would be able to understand the  meaning of the terms. A degree of imprecision is permissible providedit would be clear to the skilled person (General Tire v Firestone [1971] RPC 173, upheld on appeal in [1972] RPC 457).

5.47 Claims may be considered to be unclear simply due to its wording, such as by the use of relative terms (wide, thin, thick), or unclear antecedents or dependencies and such defects can usually be rectified by simple amendments.