Claims process

Some of the earlier work in molecular diversity was carried out by Rutter et al. [5] producing large libraries of peptides, i.e., a mixture of peptides which included not just hun- 

The above method claim is broad in scope by covering all methods which use a basic concept of the invention. However, it is narrow in two respects. First, it does not cover peptide libraries made by other methods [6], Second, it is limited to a specific version of the basic method wherein the reaction product mixture includes each product in substantially equal molar amounts . These limitations were dealt with in related applications as described below. Specifically, the application was filed as a continuation application. (Under 35 USC 120, once a U.S. apphcation is filed additional continuation applications can be filed off it claiming priority back to the filing date of the first filed case, see 37CFR 1.60.) 

The filing of an application establishes a priority date and others wanting to invalidate the patent must be before that date to establish a prior invention. A continuation application has the same priority date as the originally filed parent application (see Fig. 1). 

The claims of the continuation application were prosecuted without the limitation regarding equal molar amounts. An issued claim from U.S. Patent No. 5 225 533 reads as follows  

The claim from the 533 patent is broader than the claim from the 175 patent. Both claim an inventive method for making a mixture of peptides whereby amino acid reactants are combined with each other based on their relative reaction rate constants. By combin- 

---

Theie aie only a few fat replacement products based on protein. LITA is a com protein—polysaccharide compound the role of the polysaccharide is to stabilize the protein (zein). The final product is 87% protein and 5% polysaccharide. The mixture, spray dried after processing, claims to look like cream on rehydration. It is low in viscosity, flavor, and lubricity, and is stable to mild heating. The protein particle size is 0.3—3 p.m (55). 

Manufacture of 2-acetylthiophenes involves direct reaction of thiophene or alkylthiophene with acetic anhydride or acetyl chloride. Preferred systems use acetic anhydride and have involved iodine or orthophosphoric acid as catalysts. The former catalyst leads to simpler workup, but has the disadvantage of leading to a higher level of 3-isomer in the product. Processes claiming very low levels of 3-isomer operate with catalysts that are proprietary, though levels of less than 0.5% are not easily attained. 

At the beginning of the 1990s, Houston Industries developed an enzymatic process ( Enzymatic Coal Desulfurization ) protected in Canada and US [83,84], Although, the application was focused to coal desulfurization it may also be applicable to crude oil and fossil fuel-derived liquids. The processes claim the removal of both, organic as well as inorganic sulfur species. The process was described as using ground coal (10-50 p,m) slurried with water, while the oil was treated in an aqueous emulsion. 

A process claim covers performance of the process steps, but it also provides patent coverage to products made according to the recited process. 35 U.S.C. 271(g) ( Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a patented process in the United States shall be liable as an infringer. . . . ). 

The Thorold plant " was designed to produce 2000 gallons per day, but improvements in the process have shown that the equipment is capable of producing much more than that amount. The plant uses batch fermentation and reuses yeast according to the Melle process. Claims are made for the production of alcohol at costs as low as 12.4 cents per gallon. 

Potassium hydroxide absorbed into powdered polycaprolactam and heated with ethylene oxide gas in chlorobenzene at 80° C for 7 hrs is the process claimed... 

The production of aldehyde groups through periodate oxidation and subsequent formation of oxime groups is being used as a basis for an anionic initiation of grafting with titanium chloride as catalyst according to a process claimed by Asahi Chemical Industries Company (135). With this method styrene was grafted onto viscose rayon. Also bi- and tri-valent vanadium salts can be used as initiators. 

Many passive microstructured mixers (see e.g. [2, 3]) follow design principles used at the macro-scale for static mixers with internal packings [4], It stands to reason that some of the advantages in processing claimed for conventional static mixer also apply or may be even more pronounced when using static mixers [4] ... 

Subsequent steps left out additional process claims 13-15 deleted.)... 

Each claim in an issued U.S. patent application will be numbered, and each claim is exactly one sentence long.8 The structure of a typical claim contains three parts, which are, in the order of their usual appearance, the preamble, the transition, and the claim body (Figure 5.4 identifies the three parts of the composition claim 1 and the process claim 2). 

FIGURE 5.4 Compound and process claims with claim parts labeled. 

Process claims Methods of making and using compounds Compounds made by different methods the process is new and the compound is old... 

Product-by-process claims Varies - can cover compounds made by any process, may be limited to process step Varies depending on whether the compound is new Best when compound or composition can only be described by the process by which it is made... 

There are basically three types of patent claims (i) product or compound claims (ii) process or method claims and (iii) product-by-process claims (see Table 3). The name of each type of claim is self-defining. Product claims cover devices such as robotics [2] which are used in combinatorial chemistry. In addition, these claims can cover a particular compound, group of compounds or even an entire library of compounds [3], Note that... 

In addition to claiming libraries via a standard product claim, the 684 patent includes a product-by-process claim as follows. 

A product-by-process claim can be used in three different situations [4] as follows (i) when the product is new and unobvious, but is not capable of independent definition (ii) when the product is old or obvious, but the process is new and (iii) when the product is... 

Libraries or subgroups of libraries can be products themselves which could be covered by product and/or product-by-process claims. Claims to the library need not describe in detail each or any particular molecule in the library. The claim need only clearly and distinctly claim the boundaries of the library as a whole such that those reading the claim understand when they are infringing - one does not infringe such a claim by making any particular compound but by making the library. 

The value of library claims such as those described above in the 684 patent is understood when one considers the split resin methodology [11] which was developed after the reaction rate constant method described above (see Process claims ). Using the split resin... 

The technology profits from the extensive experience gained by the oxychlorination of ethylene, but is based on a completely different catalyst. The new process claims a cost reduction of about 30%, because the ethane price is about one third that of ethylene. 

The first lawyer assigned to molecular sieves planned to base protection on the process of manufacture. Since we could not possibly cover all practical methods of making A and X, we asked for composition of matter coverage, with process claims only to protect our actual manufacturing methods, and broad use claims covering as many applications as possible, so as to minimize the possibility of restrictive use claims by others. 

Moore, S., Two-Stage Stretch (Injection) Blow Process Claims Benefits for Drink Cups, MP, Jan. 2003. 

---