What are negative limitations in patent claims?
Negative limitations in patent claims are statements that describe what the invention is not, rather than what it is. According to MPEP 2173.05(i), “The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. So long as the boundaries of the patent protection sought are set forth…
Read MoreAre negative limitations allowed in patent claims?
Yes, negative limitations are allowed in patent claims. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2173.05(i) states: “The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. So long as the boundaries of the patent protection sought are set forth definitely, albeit negatively, the claim complies…
Read MoreWhat is the ‘necessity doctrine’ in relation to incorporating figures or tables in patent claims?
The ‘necessity doctrine’ refers to the principle that incorporating figures or tables into patent claims by reference should only be done when absolutely necessary. According to MPEP 2173.05(s), “Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.“ This doctrine emphasizes that referencing figures or tables in claims should be a last resort, used…
Read MoreWhen does naming a species in prior art anticipate a claim?
Naming a species in prior art can anticipate a claim when the species is clearly and specifically named, regardless of how many other species are also mentioned. The MPEP states: “A reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.” (MPEP 2131.02) This means that even…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of trademarks in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of trademarks in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(a). According to the manual: “If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of relative terminology in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of relative terminology in patent claims in section 2173.05(b). While this is not directly part of the ‘New Terminology’ section, it’s closely related and important for claim drafting. The key points are: Acceptability of relative terms: The MPEP states, “The use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address “or the like” phrases in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of “or the like” phrases in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). The section cautions against using such phrases as they can lead to indefiniteness: “Use of the phrase “or the like” or “or similar meaning” renders a claim indefinite if the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.”…
Read MoreWhat is the MPEP’s stance on using “optionally” in patent claims?
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted: “A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative.…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address negative limitations in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses negative limitations in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(i), which is closely related to the discussion on alternative limitations in MPEP 2173.05(h). The MPEP states: “The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation.” This guidance indicates that negative limitations are generally acceptable…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address “Markush” groupings in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses “Markush” groupings in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, and is typically expressed as “a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C.” The MPEP states: “Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives…
Read More