How does the 'In re Hyatt' case relate to single means claims?

Q: How does the 'In re Hyatt' case relate to single means claims?

The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a) . The MPEP states: "The court in In re Hyatt , 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was not in compliance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim." This case established that single means claims that are overly broad and not fully supported by the specification can be rejected under the enablement requirement. To learn more: In re Hyatt single means claim enablement legal precedent

Question

Accepted Answer

The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states:

"The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was not in compliance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim."

This case established that single means claims that are overly broad and not fully supported by the specification can be rejected under the enablement requirement.

To learn more:

Patent Law FAQ

This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.

How does the ‘In re Hyatt’ case relate to single means claims?