Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
How does “having” function as a transitional phrase in patent claims?
The transitional phrase “having” in patent claims can function in different ways depending on the context:
- Open-ended transition: “Having” is generally interpreted as an open-ended transition, similar to “comprising,” unless the specification or other circumstances suggest otherwise.
- Closed transition: In some cases, “having” can be interpreted as a closed transition, similar to “consisting of,” if the intrinsic evidence clearly indicates that intent.
According to MPEP 2111.03:
“Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.“
When interpreting claims with “having” as a transitional phrase, examiners and practitioners should carefully consider the specification and prosecution history to determine the intended scope.
To learn more:
The interpretation of other transitional phrases like “having” in patent claims depends on the context and the specification. The MPEP states, Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.
This means that unlike the more standardized phrases like “comprising” or “consisting of”, the interpretation of “having” can vary. It may be interpreted as open-ended (similar to “comprising”) or closed (similar to “consisting of”) depending on the specific language in the specification and the overall context of the invention.
For example, the MPEP cites cases where “having” has been interpreted differently:
- In Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., “having” was interpreted as open terminology.
- In Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., the term “having” in the transitional phrase did not create a presumption that the body of the claim was open.
This variability in interpretation underscores the importance of clear and precise language in patent drafting and the need for careful analysis during patent examination and litigation.
To learn more:
MPEP 2111.03 – Transitional Phrases (2)
How does “having” function as a transitional phrase in patent claims?
The transitional phrase “having” in patent claims can function in different ways depending on the context:
- Open-ended transition: “Having” is generally interpreted as an open-ended transition, similar to “comprising,” unless the specification or other circumstances suggest otherwise.
- Closed transition: In some cases, “having” can be interpreted as a closed transition, similar to “consisting of,” if the intrinsic evidence clearly indicates that intent.
According to MPEP 2111.03:
“Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.“
When interpreting claims with “having” as a transitional phrase, examiners and practitioners should carefully consider the specification and prosecution history to determine the intended scope.
To learn more:
The interpretation of other transitional phrases like “having” in patent claims depends on the context and the specification. The MPEP states, Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.
This means that unlike the more standardized phrases like “comprising” or “consisting of”, the interpretation of “having” can vary. It may be interpreted as open-ended (similar to “comprising”) or closed (similar to “consisting of”) depending on the specific language in the specification and the overall context of the invention.
For example, the MPEP cites cases where “having” has been interpreted differently:
- In Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., “having” was interpreted as open terminology.
- In Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., the term “having” in the transitional phrase did not create a presumption that the body of the claim was open.
This variability in interpretation underscores the importance of clear and precise language in patent drafting and the need for careful analysis during patent examination and litigation.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
How does “having” function as a transitional phrase in patent claims?
The transitional phrase “having” in patent claims can function in different ways depending on the context:
- Open-ended transition: “Having” is generally interpreted as an open-ended transition, similar to “comprising,” unless the specification or other circumstances suggest otherwise.
- Closed transition: In some cases, “having” can be interpreted as a closed transition, similar to “consisting of,” if the intrinsic evidence clearly indicates that intent.
According to MPEP 2111.03:
“Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.“
When interpreting claims with “having” as a transitional phrase, examiners and practitioners should carefully consider the specification and prosecution history to determine the intended scope.
To learn more:
The interpretation of other transitional phrases like “having” in patent claims depends on the context and the specification. The MPEP states, Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.
This means that unlike the more standardized phrases like “comprising” or “consisting of”, the interpretation of “having” can vary. It may be interpreted as open-ended (similar to “comprising”) or closed (similar to “consisting of”) depending on the specific language in the specification and the overall context of the invention.
For example, the MPEP cites cases where “having” has been interpreted differently:
- In Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., “having” was interpreted as open terminology.
- In Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., the term “having” in the transitional phrase did not create a presumption that the body of the claim was open.
This variability in interpretation underscores the importance of clear and precise language in patent drafting and the need for careful analysis during patent examination and litigation.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
How does “having” function as a transitional phrase in patent claims?
The transitional phrase “having” in patent claims can function in different ways depending on the context:
- Open-ended transition: “Having” is generally interpreted as an open-ended transition, similar to “comprising,” unless the specification or other circumstances suggest otherwise.
- Closed transition: In some cases, “having” can be interpreted as a closed transition, similar to “consisting of,” if the intrinsic evidence clearly indicates that intent.
According to MPEP 2111.03:
“Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.“
When interpreting claims with “having” as a transitional phrase, examiners and practitioners should carefully consider the specification and prosecution history to determine the intended scope.
To learn more:
The interpretation of other transitional phrases like “having” in patent claims depends on the context and the specification. The MPEP states, Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.
This means that unlike the more standardized phrases like “comprising” or “consisting of”, the interpretation of “having” can vary. It may be interpreted as open-ended (similar to “comprising”) or closed (similar to “consisting of”) depending on the specific language in the specification and the overall context of the invention.
For example, the MPEP cites cases where “having” has been interpreted differently:
- In Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., “having” was interpreted as open terminology.
- In Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., the term “having” in the transitional phrase did not create a presumption that the body of the claim was open.
This variability in interpretation underscores the importance of clear and precise language in patent drafting and the need for careful analysis during patent examination and litigation.
To learn more: