Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The current version of the MPEP is the 9th Edition, which was released in March 2014. The MPEP has traditionally been available in paper form, but electronic versions are now used more often, particularly because an applicant only may consult the electronic versions while taking the USPTO registration examination, or the patent bar examination ...
Rule 43(1) EPC notably imposes that an independent claim should be drafted in a two-part form, including a preamble and a characterizing part. The preamble, which is sometimes also called "pre-characterizing portion", [11] includes all the features of the claim that in combination are known in a prior art document, namely the closest prior art ...
"Wherein" clauses limit the scope of the claim. [21] Other forms of purpose language are "whereby" and "thereby" clauses, similar to the "wherein" clauses just described, [22] and statements of intended use in a claim preamble (depending on facts of case, preamble may or may not limit claim scope; in this case it was the "essence of the ...
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application.For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories".
Thus, according to MPEP, the claims in a patent application may be properly restricted to (i.e. split into) two or more divisional patent applications, if the claims (i.e. claimed inventions) are either independent (MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)).
This means that, after G 9/93, the only possibility for the proprietor of a European patent to voluntarily limit the scope conferred by its patent (e.g. for instance to strengthen the patent in view of some newly discovered prior art documents and/or in advance of envisaged litigation) was to request such limitation at the national level, i.e ...
a mere change in the form or proportions (Evans, 1822) change in the “principle of the machine” (Evans, 1822) change of a material for a known material without changing function even if a lower cost results (Hotchkiss 1851) unusual or surprising consequences (Great Atlantic, 1950) only unites old elements with no change in their respective ...
This is the broadest form of transition, as it does not limit the preamble to whatever elements are identified in the claim. If the above patent used the word "comprising" instead of "consisting of", then the third party's pencil-plus-eraser would be infringing (assuming that the patent is otherwise valid).