Is double inclusion always improper in patent claims?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. No, double inclusion is not always improper in patent claims. The MPEP 2173.05(o) clearly states: “There is no per se rule that ‘double inclusion’ is improper in a claim.” The MPEP further elaborates by citing In re Kelly, which states: “Automatic reliance upon a ‘rule against double inclusion’ will lead to as many unreasonable interpretations as will automatic reliance upon a ‘rule allowing double inclusion’. The governing consideration is not double inclusion, but rather is what is a reasonable construction of the language of the claims.” This means that each case of double inclusion should be evaluated on its own merits, considering whether it leads to indefiniteness or uncertainty in the claim’s scope. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse No Per Se Rule Against Double Inclusion in Claims MPEP 2173.05(o) Reasonable Construction of Claim Language MPEP 2173.05(o) Recommended Claims Must Be Clear and Definite MPEP 2173 Claim Indefiniteness Due to Multiple Inclusion Must Be Evaluated MPEP 2173.05(o) Required Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention MPEP 2173 Required Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention MPEP 2173 Definiteness Requirement for Claims MPEP 2173 Required Claim Must Be Definite Under Section 112(b) MPEP 2173 Requirement for Clear Claim Language MPEP 2173 Permitted Claims Must Clearly Define Boundaries MPEP 2173 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How does double inclusion affect claim indefiniteness? How does double inclusion affect device claims in patents? How does double inclusion affect Markush groups in patent claims? What is the significance of In re Kelly in unders...