【程序】restriction requirement限制要求

【程序】restriction requirement限制要求

在審查員提出restriction requirement而分割成二個以上的專利案時，於之後所加入或修改的claim尚必需符合consonance requirement，才可避免the charge of double patenting。至於什麼是“consonance requirement” 請參照如下黑體字。

The claims of the different applications or patents are not consonant with the restriction requirement made by the examiner, since the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. For example, the divisional application filed includes additional claims not consonant in scope to the original claims subject to restriction in the parent. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and Gerber Garment Technology, Inc. v. Lectra Systems, Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 16 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In order for consonance to exist, the line of demarcation between the independent and distinct inventions identified by the examiner in the requirement for restriction must be maintained. 916 F.2d at 688, 16 USPQ2d at 1440.

資料來源：MPEP 804.01
其他有關restriction requirement的判例，可用google搜尋。