What must be shown to overcome an indefiniteness rejection?

To overcome an indefiniteness rejection, it is essential to demonstrate a clear interpretation of the claim limitation in question. Indefiniteness pertains to the requirement that patent claims must be precise enough that a person skilled in the art can understand the metes and bounds of the invention.

Showing a clear interpretation indicates that the terms used in the claim are not ambiguous and can be understood in a manner that allows someone skilled in the art to determine the scope of the claims without undue experimentation or speculation. Thus, clarity ensures that the invention can be reliably understood and applied, aligning with the statutory requirements for patentability.

In this context, the other options do not directly address the fundamental requirement for overcoming indefiniteness. While revisions to claim language may contribute to clarity, they are not inherently necessary if clear interpretation can be established. Support by prior art examples or specific arguments against prior art references may aid in addressing other types of rejections, but they do not address the core issue of claim clarity needed to overcome an indefiniteness rejection.