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

2. U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson

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

4. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 WHAT IS NOT PATENTABLE? Examples Mere printed matter Naturally occurring articles Scientific Principles Algorithms per se Computer programs per se

5. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 Patentable?INDIAU.S. New property, new form, or new use for a known substance MaybeYes Methods of agriculture or horticulture NoYes Methods of treating humans or animals NoYes Business methods NoYes

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

7. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 ERROR 1 Relying on one set of claims -Applicant is allowed 3 independent claims and 20 total claims per filing fee

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

9. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 ERROR 2 Using reference numbers in claims. Reference numbers could be used in litigation to limit the claim scope

10. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 Example of error 2 A system (10) comprising: a plurality of computers (20); a server (30) connected to the computer by a network (40).

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

12. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 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:

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

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

15. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 ERROR 5 Claiming broader scope than supported by the description Can be grounds for rejection for lack of enablement

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

17. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 ERROR 6 Not providing intermediate range fallback positions Good to have if portion of the primary range is found in the prior art

18. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 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%.

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

20. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 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…

21. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 ERROR 8 Claiming subject matter that is not illustrated in a drawing Subject to an objection by the Examiner

22. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 Example of error 8 Drawings show features of one embodiment Claims (usually dependent claims) recite features of other described but not illustrated embodiments

23. Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. 2008 ERROR 9 Lack of antecedent basis for claim terms Reliance upon inherent features Inferential features Grounds for rejection

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

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

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

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

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

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