What is the significance of an ‘evidence claim’ in combination-subcombination restriction requirements?

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.

An ‘evidence claim’ in combination-subcombination restriction requirements is a claim that demonstrates the combination does not rely on the specific details of the subcombination for patentability. The MPEP explains:

“Claim AB_br is an evidence claim which indicates that the combination does not rely upon the specific details of the subcombination for its patentability.”

Here, ‘br’ stands for ‘broad,’ indicating that the subcombination is broadly recited in the combination claim. The presence of an evidence claim (AB_br) supports the examiner’s argument for restriction between the combination (AB_br) and the subcombination (B_sp). It shows that the combination can be patentable without the specific details of the subcombination, which is one of the criteria for distinctness in combination-subcombination restrictions.