1 Drafting Mechanical Claims Glenn M. Massina, Esq. RatnerPrestia, PC August 26, 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Practical Tips for Preparing U.S. Patent Applications Presented on November 14, 2006 Darryl Mexic, Partner Sunhee Lee, Partner Seok-Won Stuart Lee, Associate.
Advertisements

Technology Center 1600 Training on Writing Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On Patent Claims and how to write them Jonah Probell not an attorney.
Patent Claim Basics Presented by The Patent Guild, Inc. Paul Royal, Jr. Registered Patent Agent.
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
How to read a patent? Karen Curé.
BLAW 2010 Patent Project Part 1I. Why do we have patent laws?
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
CS 5060, Fall 2009 Digital Intellectual Property Law Drafting a software patent application October 19th Lecture.
What are Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys? University Careers Presentation Autumn 2008.
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act By Paul Fleischut SENNIGER POWERS.
Claim Interpretation By: Michael A. Leonard II and Jared T. Olson.
J. Gordon Thomson Professional Corporation Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public (Ontario) Registered Patent Agent (Canada & USA) Registered Trade-mark.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 10, 2008 Patent – Infringement 3.
STOLL: Original Claims 4, 8 v. Issued Claim 1, cont. 4. A linear motor according to any of claims 1 to 3, wherein the sealing means of the.
D ANIELS B AKER Introduction to Patent Law Doug Yerkeson University of Cincinnati Senior Design Class April 6, 2005.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 16, 2009 Patent – Novelty.
Intro to Novelty Patent Law Sept. 14, Newsflash!!
By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.
Current and Future USPTO Practice RESTRICTION PRACTICES AT THE USPTO 1 © AIPLA 2015.
The 50 to 499 person high-tech company Jonah Probell Nothing presented here is legal advice.
Understanding patent claims (f) Drug for the treatment of cancer.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
The New USPTO Rules and their Impact on Biomedical Patent Prosecution Mojdeh Bahar, J.D.,M.A. Technology Licensing Specialist Office of Technology Transfer.
Drafting the Best Possible Claims Andrew J. Dillon.
Dr. Michael Berger, European Patent Attorney © Michael Berger Intellectual Property (IP): Patents for Inventions.
Understanding patent claims (a) Toy ball. Sub-module CUnderstanding patent claims - (a) Toy ball 2/15 The invention A ball that is fun to use, easy to.
Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 After KSR v. Teleflex
European Patent Applicants Filing in China Common Mistakes Zheng Li Zhongzi Law Office September, 2014.
Overview of Intellectual Property An Overview of Intellectual Property David R. Todd Workman Nydegger Salt Lake City, Utah.
California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Advice for Drafting.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 6: Validity and Infringement 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 6 Dr. Tal.
Heli PihlajamaaLondon, Director Patent Law (5.2.1) Clarity - Article 84 EPC.
Josiah Hernandez Patentability Requirements. Useful Having utilitarian or commercial value Novel No one else has done it before If someone has done it.
Disembodied Embodiments: Medical Device Strategy for PCT and Foreign Applications Bruce D. Sunstein Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP Boston
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson.
AIPLA Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers Electrical, Computer & Software Claim Drafting Rick A. Toering | |
New Practice of Unity of Invention (Article 37) "Unity of Invention" and "Shift Amendments" under the Revised Examination Guidelines in Japan JPAA International.
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
Everything you wanted to know about patents. Intellectual property Product of the mind: idea, invention, artistic expression, name, business process,
Revisions to Japanese Patent Law Before the law was revised, a Divisional Applications could not be filed after a Notice of Allowance 2.
Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents II Class Notes: March 4, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
Ian DeBoo Period 6 12/11/10 Engineering. Identify The Problem The creation of the automobile made transportation faster and easier. Karl Benz originally.
Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.
Patent Prosecution Luncheon October Patent Document Exchange China now participating in Patent Document Exchange (PDX) program. –Effective October.
Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.
1 Patent Prosecution: Best Practices for Reducing Costs While Improving Patent Quality February 9, 2010.
Claims and Determining Scope of Protection -Introduction Nov. 9, 2014 APAA Patents Committee Penang Malaysia Kay Konishi Co-chair of APAA Patents Committee.
Olek Pawlowski IEOR 190 Spring 2009 UC Berkeley Explaining the basic concepts of the landmark Supreme Court patent case of KSR vs. Teleflex and specifically.
Patents and the Patenting Process Patents and the Inventor’s role in the Patenting Process.
The Disclosure Interview Evaluating IP Options July 12, 2015 Curtis Droege – Manager of Underwriting.
Yuichi Watanabe Osha Liang LLP January 26, 2016 Practice Tips: Prosecution of Japan-origin US applications 1 © AIPLA 2015.
© 2012 Copyright Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC William C. Rowland Fang Liu Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Introduction to Intellectual Property.
1/30 PRESENTED BY BRAHMABHATT BANSARI K. M. PHARM PART DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS AND PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLGY L. M. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY.
Key Principles for Patenting in the Land of LENR
PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION
AIPLA Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers
Preparing a Patent Application
Drafting Mechanical Claims
Patents VI Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents
Global Innovation Management Workout on Writing a Patent
Bonneville Power Administration Aerial Line Cart Progress Report
Preparing a Patent Application
Claim drafting strategies when filing a European patent application or entering the European phase of a PCT-application Christof Keussen
Presentation transcript:

1 Drafting Mechanical Claims Glenn M. Massina, Esq. RatnerPrestia, PC August 26, 2010

2

3 Focus on the “Heart” of the Invention  Understand what the inventor believes is the invention –What has the inventor previously done? –What are the advantages of the new design? –Is there more than one inventive feature?

4 Identify Fundamental Elements  Understand scope of the prior art What have competitors previously done? Recommend a patentability search?  Defines the potential claim limits – what is the target?  Ideas of alternatives – can prior art be used to develop alternative embodiments

5 Terminology and Interrelationship

6

7

8

9

10 Terminology and Interrelationship

11 Terminology and Interrelationship

12 Terminology and Interrelationship  Don’t rely heavily on means-plus-function claims –The scope of equivalents is limited to what is disclosed in the specification and its equivalents –Eliminate the term “means” –Consider structure “configured to” –Consider eliminating the element Instead of “means for joining panel A to housing B” Try “a panel A joined to housing B”

13 Terminology and Interrelationship  Generally, try to eliminate “where as” and “such that” clauses which describe intended use or advantages –Patent is not a marketing brochure –Statute only requires claimed invention to be novel, non-obvious and have a utility

14 Claim Review and Revision  Draft claims narrowly and then eliminate limitations –Is the element necessary for preserving the desired functionality of the invention? –Can any element be generalized or broadened in terminology without compromising claim novelty? –Is the element necessary for distinguishing the invention over the prior art? –Can any elements be combined into fewer, more general elements, without compromising claim novelty?

15 Claim Review and Revision  Eliminating and Combining Elements Suggested language: said bracket including a channel, a saddle and opposed intermediate guides between said channel and said saddle; said bracket adapted for connection to the bicycle frame;

16

17 Claim Review and Revision  General Rule –Claim that is 7 pages typed at Veranda 10 pt. and 1½ line space has limitations that can be eliminated

18 Proposed Claim: Apparatus for moving materials, said apparatus comprising: a frame having at least one handle portion positioned to be grasped for manipulating said frame, said frame also having leg portions positioned for ground contact to resist movement of said frame with respect to the ground; a body connected to said frame and configured for holding the materials to be moved; and a wheel connected for rotation with respect to said frame to facilitate movement of said frame when said leg portions are not contacting the ground.

19

20 Dependent Claims  A dependent claim should depend from a claim which includes limitations which the dependent claim modifies Simple example of undesired structure 1.A vehicle. 2.Claim 1, with wheels. 3.Claim 2, with a door. 4.Claim 3, with a sunroof. 5.Claim 4, with a headlight. 6.Claim 5, wherein the headlight is a halogen headlight.

21 Dependent Claims Simple example of with preferred structure 1.A vehicle. 2.Claim 1, with wheels. 3.Claim 1, with a door. 4.Claim 1, with a sunroof. 5.Claim 1, with a headlight. 6.Claim 5, wherein the headlight is a halogen headlight. OR 6.Claim 1, with a halogen headlight.

22 Specification Impacts Claim Scope  Claim language should be clear from specification  Write the specification expansively Try to include at least two embodiments Even if there are not multiple embodiments, try to convey that variations are contemplated Do not exclude alternatives Avoid background describing alternatives as inferior Consider leaving out “objects of the invention” If you include objects, consider softening language, for example, “At least one of the proceeding objects is met, in whole or in part, by the present invention, in which...”

23 Prosecution Impacts Claim Scope  Prosecution estoppel  Avoid claim piling on – add one limitation at a time, but not cumulatively Original claim rejected A vehicle Amended claim rejected – A vehicle with a motor. Final claim allowed A vehicle with a motor and a headlight.