How does the Halliburton case impact functional claim language?
The Halliburton case (Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946)) significantly impacts the interpretation of functional claim language in patent law. Key points include: The case initially prohibited the use of functional language at the exact point of novelty This strict prohibition was later modified by Congress in 35 U.S.C. 112(f)…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between functional language and 35 U.S.C. 112(f)?
The relationship between functional language and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is crucial in patent claim interpretation. Key aspects include: 35 U.S.C. 112(f) allows for functional claiming in combination with means-plus-function or step-plus-function language It provides a way to use functional language without running afoul of indefiniteness concerns Claims using 112(f) are interpreted to cover the corresponding…
Read MoreHow do examiners assess whether functional claim language is definite?
Examiners assess the definiteness of functional claim language by considering several factors, as outlined in MPEP 2173.05(g): Whether the specification provides a clear definition of the limitations If the claim language provides a clear-cut indication of the scope Whether one skilled in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are…
Read MoreWhat are the criteria for determining whether functional language in a claim is definite?
The criteria for determining whether functional language in a claim is definite include: Whether the claim scope is clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art Whether the specification provides a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity to inform skilled artisans of the claim scope Whether the claim language provides a clear-cut indication…
Read More