What are the implications of “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses in patent claims?
The implications of “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses in patent claims depend on the specific context and how they are interpreted. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.”
However, these clauses can sometimes be limiting. For example, in In re Giannelli, the court found that an “adapted to” clause limited a machine claim where the written description gave it a narrower meaning. The court stated that “the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles.”
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully consider the context and written description when interpreting these clauses to determine their limiting effect on claim scope.
To learn more: