How does the USPTO determine if claim language is definite?
The USPTO determines if claim language is definite by applying the following principles: Claims are reviewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Definiteness is evaluated in light of the content of the application disclosure, prior art of record, and claim interpretation that may be provided…
Read MoreCan new terms be used in patent claims?
Yes, new terms can be used in patent claims. In fact, the MPEP recognizes that it’s often desirable to use new terms to describe and define new inventions more precisely. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(a): “Courts have recognized that it is not only permissible, but often desirable, to use new terms that are frequently more…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims through form paragraph 7.35.01. This paragraph is used when a trademark or trade name is used as a limitation in a claim to identify or describe a particular material or product. The form paragraph states: Claim [1] contains the trademark/trade name [2].…
Read MoreWhat is the standard for determining indefiniteness in patent claims?
The standard for determining indefiniteness in patent claims is whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. As stated in the MPEP: “A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the ‘the’ vs. ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language?
What is the significance of the ‘the’ vs. ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language? The use of ‘the’ versus ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language is significant for establishing proper antecedent basis. According to MPEP 2173.05(e): “Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address relative terms in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses relative terms in patent claims through specific form paragraphs, particularly form paragraph 7.34.03. This paragraph is used when a relative term or term of degree renders a claim indefinite. The form paragraph states: The term “[1]” in claim [2] is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “[1]” is…
Read MoreWhat is the role of “reasonable interpretation” in making a prima facie case of equivalence?
What is the role of “reasonable interpretation” in making a prima facie case of equivalence? In making a prima facie case of equivalence, the examiner must use “reasonable interpretation” of the claim language. The MPEP states: “The examiner must apply to the questioned claim element reasonable interpretation of the claim language, including consideration of the…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of functional limitations in patent claims?
The purpose of functional limitations in patent claims is to define an element in terms of what it does rather than what it is. According to MPEP 2173.05(g), “A functional limitation is an attempt to define something by what it does, rather than by what it is (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or…
Read MoreHow should patent attorneys approach the use of exemplary language in claims?
Patent attorneys should approach the use of exemplary language in claims with caution. The MPEP 2173.05(d) guidance suggests that examples and preferences are better placed in the specification rather than the claims. When drafting claims: Avoid using phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or similar language that could create ambiguity about the claim scope. If…
Read MoreWhat is an “omnibus claim” and how is it addressed in patent examination?
An “omnibus claim” is a type of claim that fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The MPEP provides a specific form paragraph (7.35) to address omnibus claims in patent examination. According to the MPEP, an example of an omnibus claim is: “A device substantially as shown and described.”…
Read More