112(b) Indefiniteness - Fed. Cir. case decided, but not on "insolubly ambiguous" grounds as expected

Given the role of the applicant in the process, it is a reasonable implementation of the examination responsibility, as applied to § 112(b), for the USPTO, upon providing the applicant a well-grounded identification of clarity problems, to demand persuasive responses on pain of rejection. That approach decides this case, because Mr. Packard did not offer a satisfactory response to wellgrounded indefiniteness rejections in this case. The examiner here, having ample grounds, set forth a variety of ways in which he found the claims imprecise or confusing, sometimes not even understandable, considering them in light of the written description. See J.A. 109–12 (June 2010); J.A. 146–47 (Feb.2011); J.A. 172–73 (July 2011); J.A. 228 (Feb.2012); see also the more detailed factual discussion in Judge Plager's concurring opinion.

In re Packard, 2013-1204, 2014 WL 1775996 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2014) (emphasis added). 

From Judge Plager's concurrence: 

[...]

I have considered each of Mr. Packard's remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Mr. Packard's over ten pages of explanatory briefing illustrates that the claim language itself lacks the requisite minimum clarity to define the boundaries of the claims. By leaving the claims ambiguous, the public and the courts are left to clarify the patent's boundaries, in direct conflict with the requirements of the case law. See, e.g., United Carbon, 317 U.S. at 236.