What are “terms of degree” in patent claims according to MPEP?
What are “terms of degree” in patent claims according to MPEP? According to MPEP 2173.05(b), “terms of degree” are a type of relative terminology used in patent claims. These terms attempt to describe a value or characteristic by reference to a degree. The MPEP states: “Terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite. […] If the…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address “subjective terms” in patent claims?
How does the MPEP address “subjective terms” in patent claims? The MPEP 2173.05(b) addresses the use of subjective terms in patent claims. Subjective terms are relative terms that depend on the subjective opinion of a person. The MPEP states: “When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification…
Read MoreWhat is relative terminology in patent claims?
Relative terminology in patent claims refers to language that uses terms of degree or comparative expressions. According to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2173.05(b), “The use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second…
Read MoreHow does MPEP address “reference to an object” in patent claims?
How does MPEP address “reference to an object” in patent claims? The MPEP 2173.05(b) addresses the use of “reference to an object” in patent claims as a form of relative terminology. This occurs when a claim term is defined by reference to an object that is variable. The MPEP states: “To determine whether a claim…
Read MoreHow can an applicant overcome an indefiniteness rejection based on relative terminology?
An applicant can overcome an indefiniteness rejection based on relative terminology in several ways. According to MPEP 2173.05(b), “During prosecution, an applicant may overcome an indefiniteness rejection by providing evidence that the meaning of the term of degree can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.” This can…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP treat terms of degree in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses terms of degree in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(b). Terms of degree are relative terms that require careful consideration to determine if they are definite. The MPEP states: “Terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite. […] If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of “substantially” in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of “substantially” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(b). The term is often used to mean “the same as if fully met,” as in “substantially horizontal.” The MPEP states: “The term ‘substantially’ is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is…
Read MoreWhat does the MPEP say about subjective terms in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses subjective terms in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(b). Subjective terms can be problematic because they may not have a well-defined or universally accepted meaning. The MPEP states: “When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of the…
Read MoreWhat does the MPEP say about using the term “about” in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of the term “about” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(b). The term is considered a relative term that must be interpreted in the context of the claim and specification. The MPEP states: “The term ‘about’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. See Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco…
Read MoreHow is the term “substantially” interpreted in patent claims?
The term “substantially” in patent claims is often used to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2173.05(b), it is considered a broad term. The interpretation depends on the context and the guidance provided in the specification. For example, in In re Nehrenberg, the limitation “to substantially increase the efficiency of…
Read More