Source: https://www.clfip.com/ip/blog/mpep/706-03d/
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 02:33:59
Document Index: 8730253

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2171', '§ 2171', '§ 2173', '§ 2173', '§ 2173', '§ 2173', '§ 707', '§ 608']

MPEP » Section 706.03(d) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph » Chhabra® Law
Section 706.03(d) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, are discussed in MPEP §§ 2171 – 2174 and 2181, subsection II. Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.05, 7.34.07 through 7.34.19, 7.35, and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
2. This form paragraph should be followed by one or more of the following form paragraphs 7.34.02 – 7.34.11, as applicable. If none of these form paragraphs are appropriate, a full explanation of the deficiency of the claims should be supplied. Whenever possible, identify the particular term(s) or limitation(s) which render the claim(s) indefinite and state why such term or limitation renders the claim indefinite. If the scope of the claimed subject matter can be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art, a rejection using this form paragraph would not be appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2171 – 2174 for guidance. See also form paragraph 7.34.15 for pro se applicants.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “[1]” in claim [2] is used by the claim to mean “[3],” while the accepted meaning is “[4].” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
¶ 7.34.03 Relative Term – Term of Degree Rendering Claim Indefinite
The term “[1]” in claim [2] is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “[1]” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. [3]
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by “such as” and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim [1] recites the broad recitation [2], and the claim also recites [3] which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
1. In bracket 2, insert the limitation which lacks antecedent basis, for example –said lever– or –the lever–.
2. In bracket 3, identify where in the claim(s) the limitation appears, for example, –line 3–, –the 3rd paragraph of the claim–, –the last 2 lines of the claim–, etc.
¶ 7.34.08 Indefinite Claim Language: “For Example”
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
¶ 7.34.09 Indefinite Claim Language: “Or The Like”
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
¶ 7.34.10 Indefinite Claim Language: “Such As”
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
¶ 7.34.11 Modifier of “Means” Lacks Function
Claim [1] uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder as a substitute for “means” and is preceded by the word(s) “[2].” It is unclear whether these words convey function or structure. A limitation construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph must not recite the structure for performing the function. Since no clear function is specified by the word(s) preceding “means,” it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694 (Bd. App. 1967).
1. This paragraph should be used when words precede the term “means” or a substitute for “means” and it cannot be determined from the specification whether those words connote function or structure. Therefore, it is unclear whether the presumption is rebutted that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is being invoked. If the claim element recites structure for performing the function, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph will not be invoked. It is necessary for the words which precede “means” to convey a function to be performed and not recite structure to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claim limitation “[1]” uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure, material, or acts recited in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts are sufficient for performing the claimed function because [2].
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that the phrase “means for” or “step for” or the generic placeholder is clearly not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, or may present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
3. This form paragraph may be used when the phrase “means for” or “step for” is used in the claim limitation and it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the recited structure, material, or acts in the claim are sufficient for performing the claimed function.
¶ 7.34.17 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Applicant Asserts that Claim Limitation Is Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 US.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, but the Phrase “Means for” or “Step for” Is Not Used
Applicant asserts that the claim element “[1]” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim element invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because [2]. If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
1. This form paragraph may be used in response to an applicant’s reply in which applicant asserted that a claim limitation is invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, even though the phrase “means for” or “step for” is not used in the claim limitation. See MPEP § 707.07(a) for guidance on when the second action may be made final.
Claim element “[1]” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. [2]
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181 .
¶ 7.35 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Particularly Point out and Distinctly Claim – Omnibus Claim
2. Use this paragraph to reject an “omnibus” type claim. No further explanation is necessary.
4. An example of an omnibus claim is: “A device substantially as shown and described.”