How do changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients impact patentability?

Changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients generally have limited impact on patentability unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes are often considered obvious variations. Size/Proportion: “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case,…

Read More

What is the “single structural similarity” requirement for Markush groups?

What is the “single structural similarity” requirement for Markush groups? The “single structural similarity” requirement for Markush groups refers to a common structure or feature shared by all members of the group. According to MPEP 2117, this requirement is essential for a proper Markush grouping: “Members of a Markush group share a ‘single structural similarity’…

Read More

What is the relationship between single means claims and “undue experimentation”?

Single means claims are often rejected due to their relationship with “undue experimentation.” The MPEP 2164.08(a) explains: “The specification provides no guidance to determine the nature of the means and how they would be combined to perform the function recited in the claim. […] Therefore, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of a…

Read More

What is the relationship between single means claims and property-dependent claims?

The MPEP draws a parallel between single means claims and claims that depend on a recited property: When claims depend on a recited property, a fact situation comparable to Hyatt is possible, where the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known…

Read More

Why are single means claims often rejected?

Single means claims are often rejected due to enablement issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The MPEP explains: In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because…

Read More

What is a single means claim and why is it problematic?

A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of the claim. These claims are problematic because they cover every conceivable means for achieving the stated result. The MPEP explains: “The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the…

Read More