Source: https://www.clfip.com/ip/blog/mpep/803-02/
Timestamp: 2019-12-07 04:54:42
Document Index: 156380985

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2117', '§ 2111', '§ 2173', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 818']

MPEP » Section 803.02 Election of Species Requirements – Markush Claims » Chhabra® Law
Section 803.02 Election of Species Requirements – Markush Claims
A “Markush” claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(citing to several sources that describe Markush groups).
See MPEP § 2117 for a general discussion of Markush claims, MPEP § 2111.03, subsection II and MPEP § 2173.05(h)for a discussion of Markush claims and compliance with the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and MPEP § 706.03(y) for a discussion of improper Markush groupings in claims. A rejection on the basis of an improper Markush grouping should be made in an Office action on the merits. In certain circumstances, both a provisional election of species requirement and an improper Markush grouping rejection may apply to the same claim.
Pursuant to the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications (“Supplementary Guidelines”), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162 (Feb. 9, 2011), a Markush grouping is proper if: (1) the members of the Markush group share a “single structural similarity,” and (2) the members share a common use. Id. (citing In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22, 206 USPQ 300, 305 (CCPA 1980)).
Where a Markush grouping describes part of a combination or process, the members following “selected from the group consisting of” (or a similar introductory phrase) must be substitutable, one for the other, with the expectation that the same intended result would be achieved. Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1357, 119 USPQ2d 1773, 1779 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(“It is generally understood that … the members of the Markush group … are alternatively usable for the purposes of the invention … .”)(citations omitted). Where a Markush grouping describes part of a chemical compound, regardless of whether the claim is limited to a compound per se or the compound is recited as part of a combination or process, the members following “selected from the group consisting of” (or similar introductory phrase) need not share a community of properties themselves; the propriety of the grouping is determined by a consideration of the compound as a whole. See Harnisch, 631 F.2d at 722, 206 USPQ at 305 (“in determining the propriety of a Markush grouping the compounds must be considered as wholes and not broken down into elements or other components”).
III. ELECTION OF SPECIES PRACTICE FOR MARKUSH CLAIMSA. Overview
If a written provisional election of species requirement is made prior to the first Office action on the merits, it should not include a rejection on the basis of an improper Markush grouping. Any appropriate improper Markush grouping rejection should be made in an Office action on the merits. If during prosecution a new claim is added that includes an improper Markush grouping, or an existing claim is amended to include an improper Markush grouping, the examiner may require provisional election of species at that time, in the same action as any appropriate rejections . Include form paragraph8.23.01 if the applicant declined to elect by telephone.
C. Initial Examination of Elected Species1. Rejection of Claims to Elected Species
If a Markush grouping as set forth in a claim is proper and election of species has been required, the examiner must continue to search the species of the claim unless the claim has been found to be unpatentable over prior art. An examiner may not (such as by way of an Ex parte Quayle action or a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment) seek to require an applicant to limit the scope of a claim that is directed to a proper Markush group to a subset of species that falls within the scope of the claim in the absence of a rejection of the claim for not complying with the requirements for patentability (e.g.,35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112, and nonstatutory double patenting).
An Office action may be made final if the requirements of MPEP §§ 706.07 – 706.07(b) are met. If a claim in a first application recites a proper Markush grouping that encompasses patentably distinct inventions, an examiner who has required a provisional election of species need not continue to search the claim if the claim is rejected over prior art in a proper final rejection. That is, in this circumstance, the applicant’s election loses its provisional status and is given full effect under 35 U.S.C. 121. Furthermore, if an applicant files a second application that is a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of the first application, the 35 U.S.C. 121 shield may be applicable. So long as the consonance requirement is met, a claim in the divisional application to a previously non-elected and unexamined embodiment may not be rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over an embodiment examined in the first application. An amendment canceling the rejected species received after final under 37 CFR 1.116 may typically be denied entry on the basis that it would require further consideration and/or search. If the applicant’s provisional election was made with traverse and the requirement has been made final, the applicant may file a petition for review under 37 CFR 1.144. See MPEP §§ 818.01(c) and 818.01(d).