Claims, limitation

A patent is intended to further the development of science and technology by providing a pubHshed record of technological developments for all to read, consider, and discuss. At the same time, a patent provides a delineation or definition of the rights which the patent owner considers its own through the claims appended to the patent. The pubHcation of a description of the invention in conjunction with the claimed limits of the invention provides the pubHc with notice of the patent owner s affirmative rights to the invention. 

Borg Indak asserts that Benson was the inventor of the sole feature added by claim 11. However, a dependent claim adding one claim limitation to a parent claim is still a claim to the invention of the parent claim, albeit with the added feature it is not a claim to the added feature alone. Even if Benson did suggest the addition of the prior art extender to what Nartron had invented, the invention of claim 11 was not the extender, but included all of the features of claims 1,5, and 6, from which it depends. It has not yet been determined whether Benson contributed to the invention of claim 1 (although he does not claim to be a co-inventor with respect to claims 5 and 6). If Benson did not make those inventions, he does not necessarily attain the status of co-inventor by providing the sole feature of a dependent claim. See [Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 106 F.3d 976, 980-81 (CAFC 1997)] (emphasis added). 

Moving onto reference B, we see that it does not anticipate the claim in question, since it misses one of the limitations. It is important to note that, while reference B discloses the inclusion of a column, it does not disclose the column length. The length of the column is a limitation in the claim language. Remember that each and every claim limitation must be met by the prior art document in order for the claim to be anticipated. In this case, one of the limitations has not been met. 

MPEP 716.02 citing In re Burckel 592 F.2d 1175 (CCPA 1979), A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relevant importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest prior art reference. ... 

When patent protection is sought on a new use of a chemical, a first and important question is whether that new use requires a particular degree of purity, crystalline phase, admixture with diluents, location or storage facilities. If any of these or any other physical attribute is both novel and essential to the new use, a product claim limited to the new attribute should be considered. 

When the professor saw the final result for the specific rotation, +164.62 0.22, she was bewildered. The reported value exceededihe literature value of the pure dextrarotatory compound, +152.70, by 11.92, about 50 times the claimed limit of error This ridiculous result could mean only that a serious error or mistake had been made in this determination, unless the literature value itself were seriously in error, which seemed unlikely. She looked for, but could not find, a mistake in arithmetic. She examined the data and asked the student why the reading of 20.09° had been rejected. The student replied that the reading seemed too far out of line. In order to check on this, the professor suggested that they carry out a Q test. This test showed that the reading had been wrongfully rejected (calculated Q = 0.29 for = 10, = 0.41 see Table 1 and accompanying discussion). With a... 

Recently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that when a claim limitation is narrowed during prosecution, application of the doctrine of equivalents to that claim element is completely barred. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234. 3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 1999), vacated and remanded, 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002). Although the... 

The function of the description requirement is to ensure that applicants had in their possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, the specifc subject matter claimed by them. In re Wertheim 541 F2d 257, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90 (CCPA 1976). It is not necessary that the application describe the claim limitations exactly, but only so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains would recognize from the disclosure that applicants invention included those limitations. In re Smythe, 480 F2d 1376, 178... 

Table 6 of lEC 61511-1 ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 Part 1 flEC 61511-1 Modi defines the basic level of fault tolerance for sensors, final elements, and non-PE logic solvers having the required SIL claim limit in the first column. The requirements in Table 6 are based on the requirements in lEC 61508-2 for PE devices with a SFF between 60 and 90 %. The requirements are based on the assumption that the dominant failure mode is to the safe state or that dangerous failures are detected. 

Safety integrity data (for example, PFD, SIL claim limit, etc) of all devices exist. Safety integrity data of the logic solver is given in the manual of the logic solver. 

Patent infringement analysis involves basically two steps claim constmction, and comparison of the accused product to the properly constmed claim. In the first step, which is exclusively a matter of law for the court, each asserted claim is constmed to determine its scope and meaning. In the second step, a fact finder compares each properly constmed claim to the accused device, to determine whether all of the claim limitations are present in that device, either literally or by a substantial equivalent. 

Operating experience relates to the amount of successful field application experience that a device requires prior to being user-approved for the installation. The amount of experience necessary to approve a device varies based on the quality and breadth of the lEC 61508 analysis, the ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1 prior use information, the SIL claim limit (or SIL Capability), and the manufacturer s recommendations. 

NOTE - 1 The above definition of SIL claim limit may differ from other industry standards, such as lEC 62061 to reflect differences... 

NOTE - 2 A device does not have an SIL, since SIL is a quantitative measure of the performance of the overall SIF. lEC 61508 expands the use of the SIL terminology to device design requirements documented in lEC 61508-2 and lEC 61508-3. Therefore, a SIL 3 device means that the device has either completed an evaluation that the device design meets the requirements of lEC 61508-2 and lEC 61508-3 to the SIL 3 requirements and/or has been analyzed to these same requirements through prior use or lEC 61508 Compliance assessments. Since a SIL claim limit can be achieved through different methods and may have many restrictions for use, always ask the manufecturer of a device how the claim limit was achieved and any restrictions for use that may apply. 

NOTE - 3 When using a SIL claim limit to infer a device PFD,vg (assumes no data is available), it is recommended to use the conservative value of the SIL range for the device PFDavg. For example, for a SIL 3 claim limit device, the PFDavg range is 10-3 through 10-4. The conservative value (10-3) should be used unless more precise data is available. Manufecturers will typically... 

ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1 assumes that the owner/operator has considered and addressed the application requirements for the device. These are typically the same type of requirements considered for BPCS performance. These may include the technology required to detect the process conditions, to make decisions on the actions to take, and to take action on the process, the correct measurement or control ranges, the materials of constmction necessary for the environment and process conditions, and the correct installation practices. The device safety manual may outline different requirements based upon the SIL claim limit, and these must be followed. 

The device hardware design meets the requirements of lEC 61508-2 for the specified SIL claim limit... 

The device embedded software meets the requirements documented in lEC 61508-3 for the specified claim limit... 

Devices with an lEC 61508 claim limit have value for owners/operators in ensuring safety requirements are documented and satisfied by the manufacturer. However, an lEC 61508 SIL claim limit does not necessarily imply the device is reliable or has documented any actual usage in process sector applications. lEC 61508 claim limits can be obtained through analysis and assessment techniques only, and since no field experience is required to make a claim limit or obtain certification, owners/operators should use caution when specifying such devices for SIS applications unless the reliability of the device in actual operating conditions are known. 

NOTE -- Manufacturers are using a variety of terms to indicate the abiiity of devices to achieve a particuiar SIL. They may refer to a device as suitable for use in an SIL X application, fit for use in an SIL X application, SIL qualified, or SIL rated. In these cases, additional review is often required to define the SIL claim limit because these terms are not used by the standard and, therefore, do not have a consensus definition. 

A second limitation relates to the boundary of coverage of failure modes covered by the lEC 61508 certification. The FMEA used to determine the device failure rates for an lEC 61508 SIL claim limit device is limited to the device boundary only and will typically not include potential dangerous failure modes of the process interfaces, installation parameters, power supplies, or communication interfaces. Failures associated with the process interfaces are very prominent in sensors, including plugged process lines, frozen lines, corrosion and gas permeation, and in valves, including seat damage, plugging, deposition, corrosion, and stem buildup. 

The device selection process in ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 Clause 11.5 is illustrated in Figure L.1. This process defines when prior-use information is considered sufficient to Justify use of a device in an SIF application and no claim limit per lEC 61508 is required. The prior use evaluation fulfills specific requirements in ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1, Clauses 11.4 and 11.5.3 through 11.5.6. The methodologies and approaches for prior-use Justification may vary, depending on the device type (e.g. programmable versus non-programmable, field device versus PE logic solver), the device s installed base, and the owners/operators experience with the device. 

ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1 allows prior-use justification of non-PE devices and PE devices, using FPL (e.g. a SMART Transmitter), when the SIL claim limit is less than 4 (i.e., SIL 4 claim limit per ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1 is not allowed). If an SIL 3 claim limit is required, formal assessment should be performed as part of the prior use evaluation, and a safety manual should be prepared based on the results of the assessment. ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1, Clause 11.5.4, provides the requirements for... 

---