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 MoreWhat 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 MoreWhy 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 MoreWhat is the “single means claim” in patent law?
A “single means claim” in patent law refers to a claim that recites a single element to perform a function without specifying any supporting structure or steps. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2164.08(a) states: “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of…
Read MoreHow does the “single means claim” relate to the enablement requirement?
The “single means claim” is closely related to the enablement requirement in patent law. According to MPEP 2164.08(a): “Such claims are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim language is often not commensurate in scope with the enablement disclosure in the specification.” This means that…
Read MoreWhat is a single means claim?
A single means claim is a patent claim where a means recitation (a claim element described in terms of its function rather than its structure) appears alone, without being combined with another recited element of means. According to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does…
Read MoreWhat is the legal basis for rejecting single means claims?
The legal basis for rejecting single means claims stems from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2164.08(a), which cites 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The MPEP states: “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject…
Read MoreHow 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…
Read MoreHow does the Donaldson case impact single means claims?
The In re Donaldson Co. case has significant implications for single means claims. According to MPEP 2164.08(a): “The Federal Circuit has held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means…
Read MoreWhat distinguishes a single means claim from other types of claims?
A single means claim is distinct from other types of claims due to its structure and scope. According to MPEP 2164.08(a): “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.…
Read More