How are “wherein” and “whereby” clauses interpreted in patent claims?
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04: “The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.” For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 2111.04 affect the interpretation of method claims with contingent limitations?
MPEP 2111.04 provides specific guidance on the interpretation of method claims with contingent limitations. This is particularly important for determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of such claims. According to MPEP 2111.04: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 2111.04 treat the phrase “configured to” in patent claims?
MPEP 2111.04 does not explicitly address the phrase “configured to” in patent claims. However, it is often treated similarly to “adapted to” or “adapted for.” The interpretation generally depends on the specific context and structure of the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04: “The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a…
Read MoreWhat are contingent limitations in patent claims and how are they interpreted?
Contingent limitations in patent claims are conditions that may or may not occur, affecting the interpretation of the claim. The MPEP 2111.04 provides guidance on interpreting these limitations: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that…
Read MoreHow does the interpretation of contingent limitations differ between method and system claims?
The interpretation of contingent limitations differs significantly between method and system claims. According to MPEP 2111.04, based on the Ex parte Schulhauser decision: For method claims: “If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to…
Read MoreWhat is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claims with contingent limitations?
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claims with contingent limitations varies depending on whether the claim is a method claim or a system claim. According to MPEP 2111.04: For method claims: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between “adapted to” and “capable of” in patent claims according to MPEP 2111.04?
MPEP 2111.04 does not explicitly differentiate between “adapted to” and “capable of” in patent claims. However, the guidance provided for “adapted to” can be applied to understand the difference: MPEP 2111.04 states: “The court noted that an intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do…
Read MoreWhat are the implications of “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses in patent claims?
The implications of “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses in patent claims depend on the specific context and how they are interpreted. According to MPEP 2111.04: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit…
Read MoreHow do “adapted to” clauses affect the patentability of an invention?
“Adapted to” clauses can affect the patentability of an invention by potentially limiting or defining the scope of the claims. According to MPEP 2111.04: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim…
Read More