The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 22nd, 2019, 8:24am

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Usefulness
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   unity of the invention
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: unity of the invention  (Read 846 times)
mirsil
Newbie
*




   


Posts: 1
unity of the invention
« on: Sep 10th, 2007, 10:49am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

i am drafting  method claims. A method comprises three essential steps  for the production of a  powder product X, said product X may be also produced as a supported solid product, in such case the method requires two adittional steps.
 
1-a method for production of a product X which comprises the following steps, A,B and C (powder product X)
 
2-the method according to claim 1, wherein further comprises D and F (supported product X)
 
Said claims are correct or they may lack unity of the invention?  
I attemp to draft one independent claim by category
IP Logged
MattB
Full Member
***




  mbycer   MBycer
Email

Posts: 127
Re: unity of the invention
« Reply #1 on: Sep 10th, 2007, 12:06pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I hope another comments, but my initial reaction is that there is no problem unity with placing a single dependent claim  on one independent claim.
 
Problems arise with multiple indep claims or two dep claims that strike in two directions from a single indep claim that might be struck for obviousness.
 
Hope this helps!
IP Logged

Matthew L. Bycer
Registered Patent Attorney
http://www.bycer.com
http://www.cvglaw.com
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: unity of the invention
« Reply #2 on: Sep 10th, 2007, 6:32pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Generally speaking, I'd agree with Matt -- one independent claim = 1 invention.  However, I have friends who practice biotech/pharma patent law and I've heard horror stories of 100+-way restriction requirements.  For example, a claim may read on 100+ chemical compounds and the examiner asserts that each is an independent invention.  I mention that only because you're dealing with something that might lend itself to that sort of insanity.  So, can't really say until you give it a shot -- or ask someone with more familiarity with chemical practice than I have (not hard to find).
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
biopico
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 434
Re: unity of the invention
« Reply #3 on: Sep 10th, 2007, 7:43pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

If A, B and C share common structure and/or function with D and F, then I believe there is an unity of invention.
 
If A, B and C have no relatedness to D and F, then restriction requirement may be proper.  
 
I hope this makes sense.  
 
IP Logged

Registered Patent Agent Specializing in All Areas of Biotechnology
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board