How are other transitional phrases like “having” interpreted in patent claims?
The interpretation of other transitional phrases like “having” in patent claims depends on the context and the specification. The MPEP states, Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.
This means that unlike the more standardized phrases like “comprising” or “consisting of”, the interpretation of “having” can vary. It may be interpreted as open-ended (similar to “comprising”) or closed (similar to “consisting of”) depending on the specific language in the specification and the overall context of the invention.
For example, the MPEP cites cases where “having” has been interpreted differently:
- In Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., “having” was interpreted as open terminology.
- In Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., the term “having” in the transitional phrase did not create a presumption that the body of the claim was open.
This variability in interpretation underscores the importance of clear and precise language in patent drafting and the need for careful analysis during patent examination and litigation.
To learn more: