Transcript ERROR 1 Relying on one set of claims - Applicant

Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
U.S. Patent Claims
By
James A. Larson
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PATENTS
• Utility inventions – any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture or
composition of matter, or new and
useful improvement thereof
• Designs – any new, original, and
ornamental design for an article of
manufacture
• Plants – any distinct and new asexually
reproduced variety of plant
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
WHAT IS NOT PATENTABLE?
Examples
• Mere printed matter
• Naturally occurring articles
• Scientific Principles
• Algorithms per se
• Computer programs per se
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Patentable?
INDIA
U.S.
New
property,
new form,
or new use
for a known
substance
Methods of
agriculture
or
horticulture
Methods of
treating
humans or
animals
Business
methods
Maybe
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
COMMON CLAIM
ERRORS BY NON-US
APPLICANTS
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 1
Relying on one set of
claims
Applicant is allowed
3 independent claims
and 20 total claims per
filing fee
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 1:
A system comprising:
a plurality of computers;
a server connected to the computers
via a network.
Consider a second independent claim.
A system comprising:
a plurality of computers, the computers
connected to each other via a network
to allow the connected computers to
communicate with each other.
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 2
Using reference numbers in claims.
• Reference numbers could be used
in litigation to limit the claim scope
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 2
A system (10) comprising:
a plurality of computers (20);
a server (30) connected to the
computer by a network (40).
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 3
Not claiming methods of use
• Therapeutic methods in pharma
cases
• Use of medical devices
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 3
Invention is a new cancer treatment
drug
Consider a claim to using the drug to
treat cancer
A method of treating cancer in
humans, comprising:
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 4
Relying on intended use statement
for patentability of product claims
• During examination, such
statements typically not
considered limiting of claim scope
by U.S. examiners
• However, such statements likely
limiting if patent is litigated
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 4
A product comprising:
elements A, B, C and D, where
element D is used to secure
elements A, B and C together.
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 5
Claiming broader scope than
supported by the description
• Can be grounds for rejection for
lack of enablement
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 5
Description indicates that a new
composition has 10-30% by weight
of a PTFE which is the key
ingredient to the invention. All
examples in the description
describe the composition with PTFE
in an amount between 10-30%.
Claim to the composition recites
simply PTFE
with no restriction on
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
the amount. Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 6
Not providing intermediate range
fallback positions
• Good to have if portion of the
primary range is found in the prior
art
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 6
Independent claim recites 10-30% of
PTFE. No description in specification
of intermediate ranges within this
range and no dependent claim(s)
that limits this range, e.g. 15-20%.
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 7
Improper use of multiple dependent
claims
• USPTO charges a fee for multiple
dependent claims
• Cannot depend from another
multiple dependent claim
• Must use alternative language
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 7
Claim 3 – The product of claims 1
and 2, further comprising…
Claim 4 – The product of claims 1-3,
further comprising…
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 8
Claiming subject matter that is not
illustrated in a drawing
• Subject to an objection by the
Examiner
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 8
Drawings show features of one
embodiment
Claims (usually dependent claims)
recite features of other described but
not illustrated embodiments
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 9
Lack of antecedent basis for claim
terms
• Reliance upon inherent features
• Inferential features
• Grounds for rejection
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Examples of error 9
A system comprising:
a plurality of computers, the memory of each
computer storing a program.
Compare to:
A system comprising:
a plurality of computers, each computer
storing a program in memory.
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
ERROR 10
In design patents, submitting
photographs of actual commercial
product or which show to much detail
• The photographs form the claim –
claim is much to narrow
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Example of error 10
Submitted photographs are:
• in color
• show some of the packaging
• show extraneous background subject matter
• show labels such as warning labels
• show fasteners
• show other details that do not contribute to
the novel appearance
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Comments On Current
U.S. Examination Practice
USPTO is rejecting everything, often
multiple times
Use of evidence and showing unexpected
advantages, benefits, results is
becoming more necessary
Consider appeals and requests for preappeal brief conferences
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
QUESTIONS?
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008
Thank
you!
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller &
Larson, P.C. 2008