What is the difference between claim breadth and indefiniteness?

It’s important to distinguish between claim breadth and indefiniteness in patent examination. The MPEP clarifies this distinction: “Examiners, however, are cautioned against confusing claim breadth with claim indefiniteness. A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined.” Key points to understand: A…

Read More

How do examiners determine if claim language is indefinite?

How do examiners determine if claim language is indefinite? Examiners assess claim language for indefiniteness based on the guidance provided in MPEP 2173.01. The key principle is stated as follows: “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.“ To determine if claim language is indefinite, examiners consider: Whether the…

Read More

What are the consequences of a claim limitation being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)?

When a claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it has several important consequences for patent examination and claim scope: Limited interpretation: The claim limitation is interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and their equivalents, rather than any structure that performs the claimed function. Specification dependency:…

Read More

When can referencing limitations from another claim lead to rejection?

While referencing limitations from another claim is generally acceptable, there are situations where it can lead to rejection. According to MPEP 2173.05(f): “However, where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”…

Read More

How are chemical formulas treated in patent claims?

Chemical formulas in patent claims are generally treated as definite and non-speculative, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The MPEP 2173.05(t) states: “Claims to chemical compounds and compositions containing chemical compounds often use formulas that depict the chemical structure of the compound. These structures should not be considered indefinite nor speculative in the absence…

Read More

Can a patent with prolix claims be invalidated after issuance?

Yes, a patent with prolix claims can potentially be invalidated after issuance, particularly on grounds of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). While the MPEP 2173.05(m) guidance on prolix claims is primarily for examiners during prosecution, the underlying principle of claim clarity remains relevant post-issuance. In post-grant proceedings or litigation, if a court determines that the…

Read More