About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Court Report »

February 12, 2012

Comments

But what is "new subject matter"? Does it not mean one thing to a European readership and something else altogether to a readership in the USA?

Would it help Americans reading this European decision if they keep in mind that the EPC's prohibition on adding "subject matter" during prosecution incorporates into the EPC the American requirement that the app shall contain, not later than the filing date, a "written description" of what is claimed, at issue, as the invention?

This is more than an invitation to include "as much informed speculation as possible of variations that might be effective."

It's an invitation to pack your description with long lists of species and sub-genera, within every genus your invention encompasses. Claiming a method of treating a metal? Better name them all (in the alternative), just in case somebody treated gadolinium in that manner back in 1948.

U.S. examiners, propped up by MPEP 2173.05(i), can be similarly (and unfortunately) inflexible when it comes to adding negative limitations.

The other practice point to take home is to know the prior art as well as you can, before you draft an application, so you don't end up trying to conjure negative limitations out of thin air.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31