Markush claim及“擇一用語”

Markush claim及“擇一用語”

(Landis Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting Textbook, Page 6-9).       Where claiming alternative compounds, they must not be "patentably distinct" under present Office practice; otherwise, they need only have a common property useful in the combination claimed. 

當使用 Markush claim時，若審查員找到前案揭示A， 即可不必審B~G而直接核駁整個 Markush claim。Markush claim其實是一種“個人創造“的上位用語，當下位被揭露後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“不具新穎性”。當下位被認為顯而易知後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“顯而易知”。

個人認為，當使用 Markush claim時，就可推定申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間，對本領域具有通常知識者，是可互相替代的。因此，於審查中，審查員甚至可以推定B~G 為顯而易知並加以核駁。

當然，還是可以進行答辯，只是要克服前述的“推定”，申請人需要花比較多的舉證責任，證明B~G的進步性。答辯方式可以比照下位被揭露的情況，進行答辯。

因此，建議若一開始就認為下位概念「A」、「B C and D」及「E F and G」」之間是不可互相替代的，互相具有進步性，希望審查員個別進行檢索及審查，就應該要分三個claim寫。當然這會有「單一性」的問題。

此外，不單純是Markush claim，使用“or”用語的情況也適用。

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/205/205.F2d.185.5935.html

If on examination of a generic Markush type claim, it be found that the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail of recognition in exactly the same manner as would have been the case had the group of elements of the claim been identified by a single term. In such contingency, a formula of lesser scope may be invoked, provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group. In re Hass et al., supra.3


答辯的重點。
provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group.

【2010年10月20日更新】 

以「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」為例，若找到的前案為「鐵」，此時申請人希望將其限縮至「金」為例。

「a formula of lesser scope」是指「金」的範圍。

「the remaining members of the group」相對於「the major group」，「the remaining members」 加「the major group」等於「the group」。「the remaining members of the group」中，「the remaining members」是指「金」、「the group」是指「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」。「the major group」是指「銀,銅,鐵或錫」。

「the subgroup」是指「金」，「the generic group」是指「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」。

「the characteristics of 」和「 a common quality 」個人認為大致上同義，僅是法官希望用不同的用語來表示不同的範圍。「characteristics 」可為導電性，而「a common quality」可為不易氧化的性質。

由於申請人一開始就使用Markush claim代表A B C and D具有a first common quality。因此最好的答辯理由是「B C and D」的具有a second common quality different from the first common quality。

個人認為就是因為申請人一開始使用Markush claim，才讓審查員被教導成A B C and D間具有common quality，能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，如此才會變得較難答辯。審查員少了找出common quality的舉證責任。所以，假如一開始申請人初步判斷A B C and D間可能會被認為具有common quality能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，就要刻意的閃躲，即使自己已認為有common quality，也要刻意地用沒有common quality的語氣來撰寫，清楚的表明申請人從不認為A B C and D間具有common quality，並分三個claim寫或分三個案子申請，這樣子後續的答辯會較輕鬆。

當然，現實與理想，相差很遠，個人想說的僅是理論，

其他，還可以試著用如下極端的方式答辯，亦即雖然申請人使用Markush claim，但A B C and D間卻沒有common quality，亦可以直接承認誤用（當然誤用兩字不必要寫於理由書中），直接向審查員說明A B C and D間卻沒有common quality。但「B C and D」的具有a common quality而且是patentable的。

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0800_803_02.htm

MPEP

This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable **, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.

請求項的範圍能夠包含不可操作的實施例。

http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880

claim的範圍是可以包含inoperative的實施例。
"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."

Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.

2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter
The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).
請求項的範圍中包含有不可操作的實施例，不必然會使請求項為無法致能。其標準在於：該行業者是否能夠判斷，於該領域中僅僅儘平常所需之努力的情況下，哪些實施例會被認為無法操作或可操作。

「with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.」這一句還真難翻譯。不懂得改成這樣會不會比較看得懂？算不算對？「with expenditure of effort which(expenditure) is no more than normally required in the art.」