What is the relationship between single means claims and “undue experimentation”?

Single means claims are often rejected due to their relationship with “undue experimentation.” The MPEP 2164.08(a) explains: “The specification provides no guidance to determine the nature of the means and how they would be combined to perform the function recited in the claim. […] Therefore, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of a…

Read More

What is the “single means claim” in patent law?

A “single means claim” in patent law refers to a claim that recites a single element to perform a function without specifying any supporting structure or steps. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2164.08(a) states: “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of…

Read More

How does the “single means claim” relate to the enablement requirement?

The “single means claim” is closely related to the enablement requirement in patent law. According to MPEP 2164.08(a): “Such claims are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim language is often not commensurate in scope with the enablement disclosure in the specification.” This means that…

Read More

How does the Donaldson case impact single means claims?

The In re Donaldson Co. case has significant implications for single means claims. According to MPEP 2164.08(a): “The Federal Circuit has held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means…

Read More