Claim Structure

7Enablement and the written description requirement will be covered in Chapter 9. 

8 Despite the one-sentence requirement, a generous dollop of commas, semicolons, and colons can easily allow a single claim to run for multiple pages However, the patent examiner does have an ability to fight back and can reject a claim as prolix ( 112) if the scope of the claims is render indefinite due to the excess verbiage. 

9Catalina Marketing Inti. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (CAFC 2002) citing Coming Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (CAFC 1989). 

A pharmaceutical composition useful for depression ( —preamble) comprising ( —transition) a compound of formula I 

---

Not only 5-alkyl-6-aryldihydropyridazinones have attracted considerable attention as antithrombotics. There are also patents claiming structurally closely related compounds in which the (formal) hydroxy function at C-3 is replaced by a hydrazino moiety as displayed in formula (69, R = NH2NH, ArCH = NNH) [265-267] or by cycloamino substituents [268]. 

Permissible claims Must be generally Must be generally re- "Structure-function" claims "Structure-function" "Structure-function" Can be marketed... 

Keywords System Safety Complexity Safety Analysis Software Engineering Formal Methods OF-FMEA Safety Claim Structure Safety Case Safety Assessment... 

Once the safety argument has been constructed and documented, it is analyzed for flaws according to whatever regulatory or assessment criteria happen to be in place in the application domain (whether the system is suitable for use). To support the assessor s reasoning an Assessment Plan is to be developed and maintained, which includes a Safety Claim Structure to be completed (compare section 5 of this presentation). 

Working backword from the claim itself, we see that the left-hand portion of the two organic structures are the same. It remains to be seen if the R group in the claimed structure is broad enough to encompass the right-hand side (vinylbenzene-l,3-diol) of the molecule. Since R is defined as Q.g alkyl and the... 

One could reasonably ask why a demonstration of results matters if the invention is obvious on its face. If it would have been obvious to make the invention that the applicant is attempting to claim, why does it matter if that invention turns out to have some unexpected or superior results regarding its performance To better understand this, it is helpful to analyze this inquiry as directed to the patenting of molecules or chemical compositions. Whether it would have been obvious to claim a particular compound or genus of compounds is typically made by an examination of other molecules or genera of molecules that have been taught in the art. As a general matter, the closer the prior art structures are to the claimed structures, the more likely it is that... 

Issues related to prior art enablement, prima facie obviousness and secondary considerations of nonobviousness often intertwine in obvious determinations during patent prosecution and litigation since their definitional boundaries are often not well demarcated. In the case Sterling Drug Inc. v. Watson,69 the USPTO rejected claims to various single enantiomer compounds,70 and this decision was appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia. The claims in question—10,12, and 14—are presented in Figure 8.18 together with the claimed structures (L-arterenol is the neurotransmitter norepinephrine).71... 

In addition to the actual model complexes where Fe(III) is in a porphyrin ring, several other Cu(II)Fe(III) complexes have been improperly presented as model complexes64, 12 13 For some of them, the claimed structure is debatable or even likely false, as it has been conclusively proved by Sinn in the case of the Cu(II)Fe(III) complexes with a 2,2 -bipyrimidine bridge74). 

In the USA, claims on foods and dietary supplements can belong to three different categories nutrient content claims, structure/function claims and health claims. 

---