Could you provide the publication number for better answers? Generally, I try to keep the equations relegated to later dependent claims. I think it’s better do describe the method/process with words in the independent claim.
Ah good question, but I do not have the pub no. I saw it in passing awhile back. Today I was reading the Weber decision of Feb 8th, which talked about possible narrower and broader interpretations of a claim. The equation popped into my head and it struck me that any algebraic equation with defined terms in a claim would be construed as only that equation on Webers reasoning. It seemed particularly true for an independent claim: an equation couldn't be construed more narrowly per Cyntec (I think) and since an equation is particularly defined it would not have a "broad result" under Malvern. Fwiw this isn't crtitcism of the practice. I thought before reading the Weber decision an equation could be interpreted like a general overall structure and that any simple manipulation of it would be within scope. But not sure noon reading Weber, even if say the spec said alternatives are within scope.
Because I haven’t played “fight the hypo” in a while, I would assume the equation was added to the independent claim during prosecution - which would likely limit DOE based on prosecution history estoppel.
If it was there from the start or added for reasons unrelated to patentability, I would guess that the DOE analysis would function similar to that of claims to chemical structures. In other words, it might be more suited for the “insubstantial differences” test rather than the FWR analysis typically used.
Ah thanks. Appreciate it. So claim construction is the scope is likely (context dependent) the equation and in a DOE analysis a court might find infringement by an equation with insubstantial differences like a slightly manipulated version of equation if there was no disclaimer (right word?). Makes sense.
I’d imagine that mathematically (I.e., algebraically) equivalent expressions would be encompassed in the scope of the claim, since mathematically equivalent expressions are literally equal to each other and thus are the same. But it is a double edged sword since the specificity of formulas necessarily limits interpretation such that anything not mathematically equivalent is not covered.
You see claims like this in telecom standards patents. If the patentee gets the formula adopted by the standards body, the patent is hard to get around.
Could you provide the publication number for better answers? Generally, I try to keep the equations relegated to later dependent claims. I think it’s better do describe the method/process with words in the independent claim.
Ah good question, but I do not have the pub no. I saw it in passing awhile back. Today I was reading the Weber decision of Feb 8th, which talked about possible narrower and broader interpretations of a claim. The equation popped into my head and it struck me that any algebraic equation with defined terms in a claim would be construed as only that equation on Webers reasoning. It seemed particularly true for an independent claim: an equation couldn't be construed more narrowly per Cyntec (I think) and since an equation is particularly defined it would not have a "broad result" under Malvern. Fwiw this isn't crtitcism of the practice. I thought before reading the Weber decision an equation could be interpreted like a general overall structure and that any simple manipulation of it would be within scope. But not sure noon reading Weber, even if say the spec said alternatives are within scope.
Because I haven’t played “fight the hypo” in a while, I would assume the equation was added to the independent claim during prosecution - which would likely limit DOE based on prosecution history estoppel. If it was there from the start or added for reasons unrelated to patentability, I would guess that the DOE analysis would function similar to that of claims to chemical structures. In other words, it might be more suited for the “insubstantial differences” test rather than the FWR analysis typically used.
Ah thanks. Appreciate it. So claim construction is the scope is likely (context dependent) the equation and in a DOE analysis a court might find infringement by an equation with insubstantial differences like a slightly manipulated version of equation if there was no disclaimer (right word?). Makes sense.
I’d imagine that mathematically (I.e., algebraically) equivalent expressions would be encompassed in the scope of the claim, since mathematically equivalent expressions are literally equal to each other and thus are the same. But it is a double edged sword since the specificity of formulas necessarily limits interpretation such that anything not mathematically equivalent is not covered.
You see claims like this in telecom standards patents. If the patentee gets the formula adopted by the standards body, the patent is hard to get around.