U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson

1. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

2. U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

3. 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

4. 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

5. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

6. COMMON CLAIM ERRORS BY NON-US APPLICANTS Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

7. ERROR 1Relying 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. ERROR 3 Not claiming methods of use • Therapeutic methods in pharma cases • Use of medical devices Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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 the amount. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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 pre-appeal brief conferences Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

28. QUESTIONS? Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008

29. Thank you! Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008