How has the view on negative limitations in patent claims evolved over time?
The view on negative limitations in patent claims has evolved significantly over time, becoming more accepting. The MPEP 2173.05(i) provides insight into this evolution: “The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. […] Some older cases were critical of negative limitations because they tended…
Read MoreHow are terms of degree evaluated in patent claims?
Terms of degree in patent claims are evaluated based on whether they provide enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention. The MPEP 2173.05(b) states: “When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the subjective requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)?
The subjective requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is evaluated based on the inventor’s or joint inventors’ perspective of their invention. As stated in MPEP 2171: “The first requirement is a subjective one because it is dependent on what the inventor or a joint inventor for a patent regards as his or her invention.” This means…
Read MoreHow are open-ended numerical ranges evaluated in patent claims?
Open-ended numerical ranges in patent claims require careful analysis for definiteness. The MPEP provides guidance on how these ranges are evaluated: Ambiguities can arise when an independent claim recites an open-ended range and a dependent claim sets forth specific amounts that appear to exclude the open-ended component. Claims that include theoretical content greater than 100%…
Read MoreHow are numerical ranges in patent claims evaluated for definiteness?
Generally, the recitation of specific numerical ranges in a claim does not raise an issue of whether a claim is definite. However, there are certain situations where numerical ranges can lead to indefiniteness: When a narrow range falls within a broader range in the same claim, it may render the claim indefinite if the boundaries…
Read MoreHow is inherency established for functional limitations in patent claims?
Establishing inherency for functional limitations in patent claims involves a specific approach, as outlined in MPEP 2182: “If the prior art reference teaches the identical structure or acts but is silent about performing the claimed function, a reasonable presumption is that the prior art structure inherently performs the same function.” To establish inherency, the examiner…
Read MoreHow does the concept of “essential elements” relate to patent claim rejections?
The concept of “essential elements” is crucial in patent claim evaluation and potential rejections. According to MPEP 2173.05(k): “If a claim omits essential matter or fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the specification, see MPEP § 2172.01.” This means that while claims should not be rejected for aggregation,…
Read MoreCan the scope of patent claims be enlarged during reexamination?
No, the scope of patent claims cannot be enlarged during reexamination. This limitation is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.530(j): “No amendment may enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter. No amendment may be proposed for entry in an expired patent. Moreover, no amendment, other than the cancellation of…
Read MoreWhat happens if an amendment enlarges the scope of claims in a reexamination?
When an amendment enlarges the scope of claims in a reexamination, it is handled in a specific manner. According to MPEP 2270: “Where an amendment enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent, the amendment will be entered; however the appropriate claims will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 305.” This means that while the…
Read MoreWhat is the standard for determining if a claim with inoperative embodiments is still enabled?
The standard for determining if a claim with inoperative embodiments is still enabled is based on the ability of a skilled person to identify operative and inoperative embodiments without undue experimentation. According to MPEP 2164.08(b): “The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be…
Read More