Can an inventor define terms differently from their ordinary meaning?
Yes, an inventor can define terms differently from their ordinary meaning. This concept is known as “lexicography” in patent law. The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP 2173.05(a): “Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use…
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 MoreHow are other transitional phrases like “having” interpreted in patent claims?
The interpretation of other transitional phrases like “having” in patent claims depends on the context and the specification. The MPEP states, Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. This means that unlike the more standardized phrases like “comprising” or…
Read MoreHow are “equivalents” interpreted in means-plus-function claims?
The interpretation of “equivalents” in means-plus-function claims can vary depending on how the element is described in the supporting specification. According to MPEP 2184: “Generally, an ‘equivalent’ is interpreted as embracing more than the specific elements described in the specification for performing the specified function, but less than any element that performs the function specified…
Read MoreHow is the phrase “an effective amount” interpreted in patent claims?
The interpretation of the phrase “an effective amount” in patent claims can vary depending on the context and disclosure. The MPEP provides the following guidance: The phrase may or may not be indefinite, depending on whether one skilled in the art could determine specific values based on the disclosure. It may be considered definite if…
Read MoreHow does the term “about” affect claim interpretation?
The term “about” in patent claims requires careful consideration of context. According to MPEP 2173.05(b), “In determining the range encompassed by the term ‘about’, one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application.” The interpretation can vary based on the specific circumstances. For example,…
Read MoreWhat makes a claim indefinite when using relative terms?
A claim using relative terms may be rendered indefinite when the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. The MPEP 2173.05(b) states: “Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection is proper if the scope of the term is not…
Read MoreWhat is the importance of clear terminology in patent claims?
Clear terminology in patent claims is crucial for several reasons: It ensures that the meaning of every term used in a claim is apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings. It helps define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. It allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation during patent examination.…
Read MoreWhat is the impact of using the word “type” in patent claims?
The use of the word “type” in patent claims can extend the scope of an expression and potentially render it indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.05(b), “The addition of the word ‘type’ to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite.” For example, in Ex…
Read MoreWhat is the impact of using multiple transitional phrases in a single patent claim?
Using multiple transitional phrases in a single patent claim can create complexity in claim interpretation. While the MPEP 2111.03 doesn’t explicitly address this scenario, general principles of claim construction apply: Hierarchical interpretation: Typically, the broadest transitional phrase governs the overall claim scope, while narrower phrases may apply to specific elements or sub-combinations. Clarity requirement: Claims…
Read More