How does the ‘In re Hyatt’ case relate to single means claims?
The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states: “The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated…
Read MoreHow 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 MoreWhat distinguishes a single means claim from other types of claims?
A single means claim is distinct from other types of claims due to its structure and scope. According to MPEP 2164.08(a): “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreHow can inventors avoid enablement rejections for single means claims?
To avoid enablement rejections for single means claims, inventors should ensure their patent applications provide comprehensive support for the full scope of the claim. The MPEP suggests that problems arise when the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor. To address this: Provide detailed descriptions of multiple ways to achieve the…
Read More