During the prosecution of a patent application before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim amendments that introduce a negative limitation\u2015the exclusion of a particular element or feature from the scope of the claims\u2015may be dispositive in distinguishing the instant application from the prior art and advance the application toward allowance. However, the introduction of negative limitations may raise questions and issues as to whether the claims satisfy the written description requirement under 35 USC \u00a7112(a). Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit elaborated upon what satisfies the written description requirement with respect to the recitation of negative claim limitations.<\/p>\n
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert<\/em>, please visit the firm website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" During the prosecution of a patent application before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim amendments that introduce a negative limitation\u2015the exclusion of a particular element or feature from the scope of the claims\u2015may be dispositive in distinguishing the instant application from the prior art and advance the application toward allowance. However, the introduction of … <\/p>\n Continue reading “Silence Is Not Necessarily Golden for Negative Patent Claim Limitations”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[615,613,614,274,547,105],"ppma_author":[521],"class_list":["post-324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-35-usc-112a","tag-claim-amendments","tag-negative-limitation","tag-patents","tag-u-s-patent-and-trademark-office","tag-uspto"],"authors":[{"term_id":521,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","author_category":"1","last_name":"Sullivan","first_name":"Margaret","job_title":"","user_url":"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com","description":"Visit the Duane Morris website.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}