PAGE

PAGE

217

LANDISONMECHANICSOFPATENTCLAIMDRAFTING

***CurrentthroughReleaseNo.5(November2001)***

Copyright2000byPractisingLawInstitute.AllRightsReserved

TABLEOFCONTENTS

TOC\o"1-3"\h\z

DEDICATION

1

AboutTheAuthor

1

Foreword

1

CHAPTERI.STATUTORYPROVISIONS-SOMEBASICPRINCIPLES

2

§1TheStatute

2

§2OmnibusClaims

3

§3TheStatutoryClasses

4

CHAPTERII.CLAIMFORMSANDFORMATSINGENERAL

5

§4PlacementAfterSpecification

5

§5NumberingAndOrder

6

§6Preamble

7

§7TransitionFromPreambleToBody--"Comprising"

11

§8"Consisting"--"ConsistingEssentiallyOf"

12

§9BodyOfTheClaim

14

§10FormatAndPunctuation;SubparagraphForm

15

§11DependentClaims

16

§11AIndependentClaims

23

§12MultipleDependentClaims

24

§13FeesPayableForClaims

26

CHAPTERIII.APPARATUSORMACHINECLAIMS

28

§14InGeneral

28

§15PreamblesForApparatusClaims

29

§16ElementsOfApparatusClaims

30

§16AWorkpieceOrEnvironmentalElement

33

§17NegativeLimitations

34

§18SupportInSpecificationAndDrawings

35

§19NamingTheElements

37

§20SingularAndPluralElements

39

§21DoubleInclusionOfElements

41

§22UseOfReferenceNumeralsInClaims

42

§23Antecedents;Indefiniteness

42

§23ARelativeTerminology

44

§24AlternativeExpressions

46

§25PartsOrFeaturesOfElements

48

§26ClaimingHoles

50

§26AWordsOfApproximationSubstantiallyEtAl.

50

§27OrderOfElements

52

§28TyingTheElementsTogether

53

§29StructuralConnection

54

§30FunctionalOrOperationalExpressions

55

§31ClaimingDesiredResults;OverlyBroadFunctionalStatements

57

§32"Whereby"Clauses

61

§33LocationOfFunctionalClauses

63

§34The"Means"Or"Step"Clauses

63

§35ElectricalCircuitClaims(BryanW.Sheffield,JohnL.Landis,&RobertFaber)

84

§36InGeneral

88

§37ElementsOfMethodClaims

90

§38OrderOfSteps

92

§39ObviousMethodUsingNovelStartingMaterialOrProducingUnobviousProduct

94

§40ClaimsToBothMethodAndApparatus;MethodIsFunctionOfApparatus

95

§41ApparatusLimitations

96

§42ChemicalProcesses

97

§43ElectricalMethods(BryanW.Sheffield&JohnL.Landis)

99

§44ClaimsToAComputerProgramOrSoftware-RelatedInvention

100

CHAPTERV.ARTICLEOFMANUFACTURECLAIMS

111

§45InGeneral

111

§46Product-By-ProcessClaims

113

§47DesignClaims

118

§48PlantPatentClaims

119

§48AProvisionalApplications

120

CHAPTERVI.COMPOSITIONOFMATTERCLAIMS--CHEMICALCASES

120

§49InGeneral

120

§50"Markush"Expressions

122

§51TrademarkedMaterials;ArbitraryNames

126

§52SpecialClaimsForChemicalCases--FingerprintClaims

127

§53CoinedNameClaims

129

§54ClaimsReferringToDrawings

131

§56UseClaimsAndNewUseClaims;PreambleLimitations

132

§57ImprovementOr"Jepson-Type"Claims

138

§58GenericAndSpeciesClaim

141

§59CombinationAndSubcombination

142

CHAPTERVII.CLAIMSOFVARYINGSCOPE

144

§60InGeneral

144

§60AClaimingDifferentClassesOfInventionInOnePatent

145

CHAPTERVIII.NONARTREJECTIONS

146

§61DuplicateClaiming

146

§62UndueMultiplicity

147

§63OldCombination;Overclaiming

148

§64Aggregation

152

§65PrintedMatter

155

§66Incomplete

156

§67VagueAndIndefinite

157

§68Prolixity

159

§69NewMatter

159

CHAPTERIX.CLAIMINGBIOTECHNOLOGYINVENTIONS

160

§70InGeneral

160

§71ClaimsToLivingOrganisms,E.G.,AnimalsAndPlants

161

§72ClaimsBasedOnABiologicalDeposit

164

§73ClaimsToNucleicAcidsAndProteins

166

§74Novelty

169

§75ObviousnessOfDnaInventions

170

§76ObviousnessOfBiotechnologyProcessClaims

172

§77SufficientWrittenDescriptionOfDnaInventions

176

§78EnablementForDnaAndProteinClaims

176

§79ClaimsToMonoclonalAntibodies(Mabs)

179

§80ClaimsToTherapeutics

181

§81ClaimsForGeneTherapy

184

CHAPTERX.THOUGHTSONWRITINGACLAIM

185

ThoughtsOnWritingAClaim

185

ReviewOfSomeBasics

210

DEDICATION

ThisbookisdedicatedtothefacultyofPLIclaim-draftingtutors,whohavegivenmostgenerouslyoftheirtimeandtalentsinthepatentbarreviewcourse,helpingthestudentstodraftbetterclaims.ThebookisalsodedicatedtoRuthDruss,ProgramAttorneyofPLIandfounderofthePLIpatentandpatentbarreviewcourses,andtoCarolFaber,whoencouragedthewriting.

ImustalsodedicatethisbooktomypartnersinOstrolenk,Faber,Gerb&Soffen,whohavealwayssetthehigheststandardsofprofessionalisminallrespects.

ButthehighesttributegoestoJohnL.Landis,theauthorofthefirsttwoeditionsofthisbook,whosothoroughlycoveredandsoclearlypresentedthematerialthatwritingthiseditionwasapleasure.

AboutTheAuthor

ROBERTC.FABERhasbeenanintellectualpropertylawyerforoverthirtyyears.HeisagraduateofCornellUniversityandHarvardLawSchool.HeisapartnerintheNewYorkCityintellectualpropertylawfirmofOstrolenk,Faber,Gerb&Soffen.

AmemberofthefacultyofPLI'sPatentBarReviewcourse,whichfocusesontheAgent'sExaminationandclaimswriting,formorethantwentyyears,ofthefacultyofPLI'sAdvancedClaimandAmendmentwritingcoursesinceitsinceptionandofthefacultyofPLI'sFundamentalsofPatentProsecutionsinceitsinception,Mr.FaberhaslecturedonintellectualpropertyandpatentmattersforPLI,theBureauofNationalAffairs,andotherorganizations.

Foreword

TheenthusiasticreceptionofthefirstthreeeditionsofthisbookinAmericaandabroad,includingatranslationintoJapanese,hasledtothisexpanded,revisedversion,incorporatingnewcases,andfurtherdiscussionofdevelopingfields.

Mr.Landis,formanyyearsthechieflecturerfortheinstituteintheareaofdraftingpatentclaims,passedawayin1984.Hiscontribution,aswellasthecontributionsofJohnD.Kaufmann,BryanW.Sheffield,MyronCohen,andRochelleSeidewilllongendure.

Theexperiencedpatentpractitionerwillfindthisvolumebothadistillationofadvancedtechniqueandareviewofthefundamentalsofthefield.Thepersonnewtopatentpracticewillwelcometheabsenceofjargonandtheinclusionoftextsofrelevantstatutes,rules,andproceduralinterpretations.Theattorneyorbusinesspersonwithoccasionalneedtoevaluateanexistingpatentshouldfindthenumerousclaims,bothcourt-approvedandspeciallydevelopedforillustrativepurposes,convenientkeystounderstandingtheresultofthedraftingprocess.

Introduction

Theprimaryobjectofthisbookistopresentasimpleanddirectapproachtothemechanicsofclaimdrafting.ThemajoremphasisinchaptersI-VIisonpracticaltechniquesforcomposingclaimstomanydifferenttypesofinventions.InchaptersI-VI,thereisalsoemphasisonvariouspreferredclaim-draftingpracticesandtechniquesthathavegrownupovertheyearsbycaselaw,[1]PatentandTrademarkOffice[2]rulesandmemoranda,and,simply,custom,aswellasdefinitionsandpreferredusageofstylizedwordsandphrasesinthepatentlaw,suchas"comprising,""consisting,""meansfor,""stepfor,"and"whereby."

Thereisalsoextensivediscussionofmanycaselawdoctrinesrelatingtononartrejections,[3]bothclassicrulesandmoderntrends.Inmanyoftheseareas,therehavebeenliberalizingtrendsbythecourts[4]inrecentyearstooverthroworsimplifyrejectionsnotbasedonpriorart.Inparticular,thisbookcoversboththeclassicandthemorerecentconstructionsofmeansclauses(section34),inherentfunctionoftheapparatusdoctrine(section40),mentalstepsandcomputerprograms(section44),product-by-processclaims(section46),claimsreferringtodrawings(section54),newuseclaimsandpreamblelimitations(section56),Jepsonclaims(section57),unduemultiplicity(section62),oldcombination(section63),aggregation(section64),andprintedmatter(section65).

Therearemanyexamplesofsuggestedclaimstovarioustypesofinventions:machines(chapterIII),processes(chapterIV),articlesofmanufacture(chapterV),compositionsofmatter(chapterVI),computerinventions(section44),designs(section47)andplants(section48),aswellasdependentclaims(section11),Jepsonclaims(section57),genericandspeciesclaims(section58),subcombinationclaims(section59),andbiotechnology(chapterIX).

Manyquotationsfromclaimsonappealandinlitigationaregiven,sothatthereadercanseeforhimselforherselfwhichtypesoflimitationsandphraseshavebeenjudiciallyapprovedandwhichnot.

Unfortunately,itistoooftentruethattheinventororpatenteewinsorlosesbecauseofformalrulesandlanguageproblemsintheclaims,notbecauseofanylackof"invention"overthepriorart.Thisbookisintendedtohelpthepractitionerindesigningclaimsaroundthesemyriadrulesanddoctrines,todraftthemosteffectivetypesofclaimsforeachtypeofinvention.

TheauthorwouldliketoacknowledgeRochelleK.Seide,Esq.ofBaker&Botts,andthestaffofOstrolenk,Faber,Gerb&Soffen,withoutwhosesplendideffortsthemanuscriptwouldnothavebeenprepared,andthestaffofthePractisingLawInstitutewithoutwhoseassiduouseffortsthebookwouldnothavebeenpublished.

NOTES:

1.CourtorPatentandTrademarkOfficeBoardofPatentAppealsandInterferencesdecisions.TheBoardisanadministrativetribunalinthePatentandTrademarkOfficethathearsappealsfromadversedecisionsofthepatentexaminersonsubstantiveissues.TheBoardusuallysitsinpanelsofthreedesignatedmembers.

2.FormerlythePatentOffice.

3.Rejectionsbasedondoctrinesotherthananticipationofobviousnessoverpriorart.

4.TheCourtofCustomsandPatentAppealswasaspecialfive-judgefederalcourthavingjurisdictionoverappealsfromPatentOfficeadministrativetribunals,aswellascustomsappeals.TheC.C.P.Awassucceededin1982bytheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit.

CHAPTERI.STATUTORYPROVISIONS-SOMEBASICPRINCIPLES

§1TheStatute

Inthebeginning,

shallalsoparticularlyspecifyandpointoutthepart,improvement,orcombinationwhichheclaimsashisowninventionordiscovery."[2]

Thestatutepresentstworequirements:(1)setforththesubjectmatter;and(2)particularlypointoutanddistinctlyclaimit.[3]Thefirstrequirementissubjectiveandevenmaychangeduringprosecutionoftheapplication.[4]Butoncethesubjectmatterisselected,thesecondrequirementforthatinventionmustbemet.[5]

Underthisverybroadandgeneralstatutorydirective,variousrulesandpracticeshavegrownupbycaselaw,Commissioner'sregulations,andcustomsince1836astohowandhownottofulfillthestatutorymandateofparticularlypointingoutanddistinctlyclaiming.

Ingeneral,thismeansthattheclaimsmustdefine"theinvention,"meaningtheclaimedsubjectmatter,insuchdetailthatthepatentexaminerand,later,theworldofprospectiveinfringersandjudgeswhoconstruetheclaimscanunderstandwhattheclaimedsubjectmatteris;thatis,whatisforbiddenterritoryandwhatisopen,insofarastheparticularpatentisconcerned.

Summary

Patentclaimsmustparticularlypointoutanddistinctlyclaimwhatapplicant(usually,you,thepatentpractitioner)regardsashisinventionafterreadingthisbook.

NOTES:

1.Thisisthesectionofthebasicpatentstatutes(title35,UnitedStatesCode)relatingtothepatentspecification,includingclaims.SectionsofthestatutesandPatentOfficeRulesofPracticementionedarereproducedinappendixD,partsIandII.

2.SeeW.Robinson,RobinsononPatents§§504-38(Hein1sted.1972).

3.MPEP2171.MPEPstandsforalooseleafbook,ManualofPatentExaminingProcedure,whichisaPatentandTrademarkOfficepublicationsettingforthdetailedinstructionstotheexaminersonalmosteverypointthatcouldariseinpracticebeforethePatentandTrademarkOffice.SectionsoftheManualcitedinthisbookarereproducedaspartIIIofappendixD.TheManualrepresentstheofficialpositionoropinionoftheOfficeonpracticallyeverypointoflawandprocedure,andiscontinuouslyamendedandsupplementedaschangesoccur.SincetheManualnormallyoperatesastheexaminer'sbible,itsmandatesshouldbefollowedtotheletterexceptwhereoneisconvincedthattheManualiswrongandone'sclient'sinterestsarelikelytobeprejudiced.Inthatcaseanappeal

omnibus"orformalclaimsarenotpermittedinutilitypatents.[6]Suchclaimsas:"Adevicesubstantiallyasshownanddescribed,"or"theapparatusasshownanddescribedinfigures1--6,"ortheclassicandallencompassing:"Anyandallfeaturesofnoveltydescribed,referredto,exemplified,orshown,"arenotpermittedintheUnitedStates,althoughtheyareallowedinsomeforeigncountries.Obviously,theseclaimsdonot"particularlypointoutanddistinctlyclaim"anything,certainlynotthe"invention."Theexaminerrejectssuchclaimsoutofhand,asbeing"non-statutory."

ThebasicconceptofUnitedStatesclaimsisthattheinventorowesthepublicadutytodefinetheforbiddenterritoryofthepatentinwordsaspreciseasthecircumstancespermit.Correspondingly,allfeaturesdisclosedbutnotclaimedareheldtobededicatedtothepublic,[7]atleastinsofarasthatpatentisconcerned.

Acustomaryanalogyisthatthepatenteemuststakeoutthepreciseboundariesofhisclaim,inamannersimilartothedescriptionoftheboundariesofaplotofland.ForthisreasonUnitedStatesclaimsaresometimesreferredtoas"peripheral"claims,meaningthattheouterboundariesorperipheryofthepatentee'sclaimmustbestated.

Thisconceptofclaimcertaintyisveryusefultopotentialinfringers,butoftenveryhardonthepatentee,becausethereal"essenceoftheinvention"issometimesnotfullyunderstooduntilmanyyearslater--whenthesomewhatdifferentstructureoftheaccusedinfringerisknownandwhentheartofthepertinentfieldhasbecomedeveloped.Thedoctrineofequivalents,designedbythecourtstopermitafindingofinfringementbyanequivalentthatdiffersinsubstantiallyfromthepatentclaim,diminishestheharshnessofclaimcertainty.[8]

Summary

Claimsmustdefinetheinventionwithcertaintyandindetail.Omnibusclaimsarenotpermittedinutilitypatents.

NOTES:

6.MPEP1302.04(b)and2173.05(r).Utilitypatentsarepatentsotherthandesigns(section47)andplants(section48).

7.Notnormallythroughbenevolenceonthepartofthepatentee,butmerelybecausethepatentbecomespriorartagainsttheinventoroneyearafterpatenting.

/research/buttonTFLink?_m=cc49c75d140424345e4e7bcc02dcd1d5&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b%a7%202%20Omnibus%20Claims%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3

InreGibbs,168U.S.P.Q.(BNA)578(C.C.P.A.1971);

/research/buttonTFLink?_m=cc49c75d140424345e4e7bcc02dcd1d5&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b%a7%202%20Omnibus%20Claims%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=35%2

35U.S.C.§102

(e).ThiscanincludethedateofanearlierUnitedStatesapplicationtowhichthepatentisentitledunder

/research/buttonTFLink?_m=cc49c75d140424345e4e7bcc02dcd1d5&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b%a7%202%20Omnibus%20Claims%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=8&_butInline=1&_butinfo=35%2

35U.S.C.§119.

8.

/research/buttonTFLink?_m=cc49c75d140424345e4e7bcc02dcd1d5&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b%a7%202%20Omnibus%20Claims%20%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=242&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%

117S.Ct.1040,41U.S.P.Q.2d(BNA)1865(1997).

§3TheStatutoryClasses

Thestatute,

process,machine,[articleof]manufacture,orcompositionofmatter,"usuallytermed"thestatutoryclasses."Manyoftheclaimdraftingrulestofollowstemfromcaselawdefinitionsofthewords"process,""machine,""manufacture,"and"compositionofmatter"inthestatute.Nomatterhownovelorhowvaluablean"invention"maybe,itcannotbepatentedifitcannotbefitwithinoneofthoseclasses.Thus,suchthingsasmathematicalformulas,oralgorithms(seesection44),printedmatter,andarticlesfoundinnaturehavebeenheldunpatentablebecausetheyarenotwithintheclassessetupbyCongress.Computerprogramsorsoftwareandgeneticallyengineeredliveorganisms,animalandvegetable,i.e.,"anyinventionmadebyman,"arecurrentlypatentableunderPatentandTrademarkOfficeguidelines.(Seesections44and71.)

Ithadlongbeenacceptedthatamethodofdoingbusinessdidnotfallwithinoneofthestatutoryclasses.ButthatexceptionwaslaidtorestinStateStreetBank&TrustCo.v.SignatureFinancialGroupInc.,[9]whichheldthatthetestforpatentabilityofabusinessmethodisunder§§102,103,and112,not§101.Ifthemethodisnovelandunobviousanddoesnotsimplyappropriateanalgorithmwithouttransformingsomething,itcanbeproperlyclaimed.ThiswasconfirmedinAT&TCorp.v.ExcelCommunications,Inc.[10](Seesection44A.)

Thisleadstoasecondfundamentalrule,thataclaim,nomatterhowbeautifullydrafted,mustdefinetheinventioninsuchawayastofititintooneormoreofthestatutoryclasses.(Seesection60Ahereofconcerningclaiminganinventioninseveralclasses.)

Withthesefewbasicprinciplesinmind,thefollowingchapterconcernssomedetailsandcommonpracticesfortransforminginventions,generally,intoclaims,afterwhichchaptersIII--VIi