Is the phrase "For Example" acceptable in claim language?

In the context of patent claims, the phrase "For Example" is generally not acceptable because it introduces potential ambiguity or vagueness. Claims need to be precise and clearly define the scope of the invention. The presence of the phrase can lead to interpretations that might expand or limit the claim's scope unpredictably, making it indefinite. The requirement for clarity ensures that those skilled in the art can understand the boundaries of the claimed invention without ambiguity, and phrases that introduce examples can undermine that clarity.

This insistence on clarity aligns with the requirements set forth in patent law, which prioritize clear definitions to maintain the legal stability and enforceability of patent rights. Thus, using "For Example" in claim language would not meet these standards and would likely render the claim indefinite.