More patent applications are rejected because of claim drafting flaws than because of problems with inventions. A trusted working tool for more than two decades, Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting spotlights proven claim drafting practices and techniques that have been firmly established by patent authorities and custom. Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting also provides full coverage of U.S. Supreme Court and other court decisions critical to claim drafting.

In the latest release, author Robert C. Faber updates and expands his treatise with practical information and commentary on a variety of issues affecting patent claim drafting. Among the topics covered are the following:

• Patent Office guidance: In November 2018 and January 2019, the USPTO issued updated guidance memorandums for examiners and administrative patent judges relating to (1) subject matter eligibility of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and (2) examination of functional claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The author highlights important points from these documents. See Chapter 1. Statutory Provisions—Some Basic Principles.
• Preamble: The Federal Circuit notes that a preamble limits the invention if it recites an essential structure or step or is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. A preamble is not limiting when a patent claim defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body, which is after the preamble, and the preamble only states a purpose or intended use for the invention claimed (Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.). See Chapter 2. Claim Forms and Formats in General.
• Indefiniteness: According to a federal district court in Texas, when the specification has two different meanings for the same word or term, and the claim includes the different meanings for that word or term, the claim thereby lacks sufficient “objective boundaries,” so that the claim is indefinite and invalid (Intellectual Ventures LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.). See Chapter 3. Apparatus or Machine Claims.
• Claim differentiation: According to the Federal Circuit, if a dependent claim contains additional limitations not present in the independent claim, then—under the doctrine of claim differentiation—the limitations cannot be applied to limit the independent claim, since the specification does not limit the invention to those additional limitations (Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu). See Chapter 8. Nonart Rejections.

This essential treatise is available on PLI PLUS. If you would like to order a print copy, please contact libraryrelations@pli.edu.