How do transitional phrases affect the interpretation of Markush groups in patent claims?

How do transitional phrases affect the interpretation of Markush groups in patent claims? Transitional phrases can significantly impact the interpretation of Markush groups in patent claims: “Consisting of” with Markush groups: Limits the claim to only the listed members of the Markush group. “Comprising” or “including” with Markush groups: Generally interpreted as open-ended, allowing for…

Read More

How does the MPEP address the use of “consisting of” vs. “comprising” in alternative limitations?

The MPEP addresses the use of “consisting of” vs. “comprising” in alternative limitations in MPEP 2173.05(h). The distinction is crucial for the definiteness and scope of the claim: “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group ‘consisting of’ (rather than ‘comprising’ or ‘including’) the alternative members.”…

Read More

What is the difference between ‘consisting of’ and ‘comprising’ in Markush groups?

The choice between ‘consisting of’ and ‘comprising’ in Markush groups is crucial as it affects the scope of the claim. According to the MPEP 2173.05(h): “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group ‘consisting of’ (rather than ‘comprising’ or ‘including’) the alternative members.” ‘Consisting of’ creates…

Read More

What is the difference between “consisting essentially of” and “comprising” in patent claims?

What is the difference between “consisting essentially of” and “comprising” in patent claims? The transitional phrases “consisting essentially of” and “comprising” have different effects on the scope of patent claims: Comprising: This is an open-ended phrase that allows for additional, unrecited elements or steps. Consisting essentially of: This phrase limits the scope of a claim…

Read More

How does the phrase “consisting essentially of” differ from “comprising” and “consisting of” in patent claims?

The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03: “The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)”…

Read More

What does the transitional phrase “comprising” mean in a patent claim?

The transitional phrase “comprising” in a patent claim is inclusive and open-ended. According to the MPEP, The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. This means that a claim using “comprising” allows for the inclusion of…

Read More