The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jan 31st, 2023, 11:09pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Patent Drafting/Interpretation
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   WO03051113
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: WO03051113  (Read 726 times)
sans
Guest
WO03051113
« on: Jun 1st, 2007, 12:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

Claim 1 of the patent publication reads as
 
"A method for controlled delivery of an amine, alcohol, or thiol drug to a patient comprising...."
 
Would the language here be construed correctly at the  courts..?  
 
thanks in advance
 
sans
IP Logged
sans
Guest
WO03051113
« Reply #1 on: Jun 1st, 2007, 1:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

I think the claim ought to have been written as
 
 "A method for controlled delivery of an amine, alcohol, or thiol drug to a patient, the method comprising...."  
 
to bring in more clarity.
 
But a person skilled in the art would probably have interpreted the claim correctly ie, would have understood that the linking word refers to the method and not to the patient.  Even the judge could have understood it the same way. But still one can argue that the language used makes the claim unclear.  
 
Is the kind of clarity in language referred to in this context considered serious,  when the claims are interpreted at the courts.  
 
Also is the understanding of English language of the person skilled in the art considered relevant in the interpretation of claims?
 
thanks in advance
 
sans
IP Logged
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: WO03051113
« Reply #2 on: Jun 1st, 2007, 8:45am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jun 1st, 2007, 1:36am, sans wrote:
 Even the judge could have understood it the same way. But still one can argue that the language used makes the claim unclear.

 
 
Even the judge, eh?  Someone is letting their cynicism show.
 
In this case, even assuming that the use of comprising is not grammatically correct here, nobody could fairly say that interpreting a patient as being comprised as a bunch of drug delivering method steps is a viable interpretation of the claim.
 
While using English correctly is the norm, a charge that a claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph requires that there be at least one alternate, clearly incorrect, but at least theoretically viable way of interpreting the claim.  
 
Quote:
Is the kind of clarity in language referred to in this context considered serious,  when the claims are interpreted at the courts.

 
Clarity is important, but I think an attempt to attack a claim as invalid for the reasons discussed here is unlikely to be successful.
 
IP Logged

Isaac
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