JMcKane Restrict

Information about JMcKane Restrict

Published on November 2, 2007

Author: Francisco

Source: authorstream.com

Content

To Restrict or Not To Restrict That Is The Question?:  To Restrict or Not To Restrict That Is The Question? Divided We Stand! Or Undivided We Stand!! By Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit 1626 Restriction:  Restriction Common Goals Quality Examination Consistent Practice Timely Processing There is a great tool to accomplish these where claims have multiple distinct inventions and are burdensome to examine! Can you guess what it is? Hint: The answer is on the top of the slide. Restriction :  Restriction Brief Background 1952 Patent Act: 35 USC 121 Discretionary authority - Director “may” require restriction Nonelected inventions must be patentably distinct from the elected invention (37 CFR 1.141) Examination of an application to one of a plurality of patentably distinct inventions that would impose a serious burden on the examiner (MPEP 803) In re Joyce, 1958 C.D. 2 (1957) In re Herrick, 1958 C.D. 1 (1957) Restriction:  Restriction 35 USC 121 and species Patentably Distinct Species – when there are patentably distinct species, there can be an “election of species” to which the application would be limited in the absence of an allowable generic claim (MPEP 806.04(a)-(i)); (37 CFR 1.141) A reasonable number of species may be claimed in one application (37 CFR 1.141) When inventions are both (i) species under a claimed genus and (ii) related, then restriction must be determined by the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to other types of restrictions such as those presented in MPEP 806.05-806.05(i) Restriction (Markush Practice) :  Restriction (Markush Practice) Markush Claim - Eugene A. Markush Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 Claimed a definition of a genus having a “material selected from the group consisting of aniline, homologues of aniline and halogen substitute of aniline Eventually the Markush-type claim turned into claiming a type of core molecule which may include a megamolecule with various “R” groups, variables and functional groups attached to the core or molecule Restriction (Markush Practice):  Restriction (Markush Practice) The Patent Office must examine what applicants regard as their invention. In re Haas, 486 F.2d 1053, 179 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1973) In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461, 198 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1978) In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455, 198 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1978) Restriction (Markush Practice):  Restriction (Markush Practice) Since the decisions of In re Weber (CCPA 1978) and In re Haas (CCPA 1978): It is improper for the Patent Office to refuse to examine that which applicants regard as their invention, unless the subject matter in a claim lacks unity of invention as defined by: In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980) Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ 2d 1059 (BPAI 1984) Restriction (Markush Practice):  Restriction (Markush Practice) Markush Language – Ex. “selected from the group consisting of…” or “any of A, B, or C”. Apply In re Harnisch test for “unity of invention” Common utility Common structural feature disclosed to be essential to the common utility Restriction (Markush Practice):  Restriction (Markush Practice) Broadly, unity of invention exists where compounds included within a Markush group (1) share a common utility, and (2) share a substantial structural feature disclosed as being essential to that utility. Restriction (Markush Practice):  Restriction (Markush Practice) Markush practice of MPEP 803 applies where unity of invention exists under the Harnisch test Non-markush restriction practice applies where unity of invention does not exist under the Harnisch test Restriction (Markush Practice):  Restriction (Markush Practice) If the members of the Markush group are sufficiently few in number or so closely related that a search and examination of the entire claim can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine all the members of the Markush group in the claim on the merits, even though they are directed to independent and distinct inventions. Slide12:  Harnisch Lines Lack of Unity Each slice represents different inventive embodiments Within each slice there are structurally similar groups which passed the Harnisch test Product/Process Rejoinder:  Product/Process Rejoinder MPEP 821.04 Proper restriction between product and process claims Applies only where product claims are elected Requires allowable product claim Applies only to process claims that depend from or include all the limitations of the allowable product claim Product/Process Rejoinder:  Product/Process Rejoinder If an application discloses both product and process(es) of making and/or using, but claims the product only and a product claim is allowed, process claims may be rejoined prior to final rejection. After final rejection or allowance, amendments will be governed either by 37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively. Product/Process Rejoinder:  Product/Process Rejoinder Rejoinder by the Office is sua sponte Less than all pending process claims may be rejoined where less than all process claims depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable product Obviousness-type double patenting may be applied where product and process claims are voluntarily filed in separate applications Take Home Message - Restriction:  Take Home Message - Restriction Technology Center 1600 is striving to have 1) quality examination, 2) a consistent practice and 3) timely processing. Every examiner in the Technology Center will be receiving restriction practice training during Fiscal Year 04 to achieve the above goals. Thank You:  Thank You Happy Halloween!

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Francisco

Finding Nemo
07. 11. 2007
0 views

Finding Nemo

Yeopresentation 000
13. 04. 2008
0 views

Yeopresentation 000

forKoreaLA
27. 03. 2008
0 views

forKoreaLA

AGE OF IMPERIALISM
14. 03. 2008
0 views

AGE OF IMPERIALISM

S1 Respdrugs
05. 03. 2008
0 views

S1 Respdrugs

Cervenka NCTCOG IOWA PeerReview
29. 02. 2008
0 views

Cervenka NCTCOG IOWA PeerReview

Green Eggs And Ham correct
27. 02. 2008
0 views

Green Eggs And Ham correct

daddy day camp
20. 02. 2008
0 views

daddy day camp

SIFT Forth
07. 01. 2008
0 views

SIFT Forth

The Sonnet
02. 10. 2007
0 views

The Sonnet

lecture3spr07
04. 10. 2007
0 views

lecture3spr07

Explosives
08. 11. 2007
0 views

Explosives

cex kr t4
01. 12. 2007
0 views

cex kr t4

Conjoint Analysis
02. 11. 2007
0 views

Conjoint Analysis

Chapter 02 Engineering Ethics
05. 11. 2007
0 views

Chapter 02 Engineering Ethics

Los Pronombres Reflexivos
05. 11. 2007
0 views

Los Pronombres Reflexivos

2003MonsterCalendar
06. 11. 2007
0 views

2003MonsterCalendar

Motions of the Celestial Sphere
13. 11. 2007
0 views

Motions of the Celestial Sphere

Ames Internship 2004 10
15. 11. 2007
0 views

Ames Internship 2004 10

Measuring Customer Satisfaction
16. 11. 2007
0 views

Measuring Customer Satisfaction

SemTag and Seeker
20. 11. 2007
0 views

SemTag and Seeker

Chapter8Overview
21. 11. 2007
0 views

Chapter8Overview

Evaluation of Student Learning
13. 12. 2007
0 views

Evaluation of Student Learning

Virtual Public Diplomacy
23. 12. 2007
0 views

Virtual Public Diplomacy

generational cohorts
27. 12. 2007
0 views

generational cohorts

Chapter 20
28. 12. 2007
0 views

Chapter 20

Introductory Lecture1
06. 12. 2007
0 views

Introductory Lecture1

ln ltc EDCD
01. 01. 2008
0 views

ln ltc EDCD

water harvesting in antiquity
02. 01. 2008
0 views

water harvesting in antiquity

Solar Eclipse Through Sp4
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Solar Eclipse Through Sp4

Bienvenidos a la Clase
17. 12. 2007
0 views

Bienvenidos a la Clase

section2
23. 11. 2007
0 views

section2

3176 2630
29. 11. 2007
0 views

3176 2630

cattaneo01
26. 11. 2007
0 views

cattaneo01

UGAmain2
28. 09. 2007
0 views

UGAmain2

telepharmacy presentation 42503
23. 11. 2007
0 views

telepharmacy presentation 42503

xuan part1
07. 01. 2008
0 views

xuan part1

GIPP 2007
27. 09. 2007
0 views

GIPP 2007

casestudy angsana
10. 12. 2007
0 views

casestudy angsana

Anthology
01. 11. 2007
0 views

Anthology