Webadditionally,16 an examiner may reject a Markush group under the “improper 8 Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r at 127. Markush originally claimed “a diazotized solution of aniline or … Web12 nov. 2012 · MPEP 2173.05(h) says: ... Perhaps the debate over and vs or in a Markush group is like the “may” vs. “can” debate in a long-ago thread here. If so, it is IMO a less satisfying debate. Conjunctive / disjunctive vs. permissive / enabling is much closer to …
Proper Markush Group Language
Web18 nov. 2024 · A Markush claim contains an “improper Markush grouping” if either: (1) the members of the Markush group do not share a “ single structural similarity ” or (2) the members do not share a... WebId. (alteration in original) (quoting MPEP § 2173.05(h)). The Federal Circuit has also explained that “[a] Markush group, incorporated in a claim, should be ‘closed,’ i.e. it must be characterized with the transition phrase ‘consisting of,’ rather than ‘comprising’ or … prefix and postfix operator overloading
Markush Claims – What Are They and When Should I Use …
Web2 aug. 2024 · Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and … WebMarkush grouping (alternatives in a single claim) Where a single claim defines several (chemical or non-chemical) alternatives, e.g. it contains a so called "Markush grouping", … Web12 jun. 1980 · "Markush" was the name of an applicant for patent (Eugene A. Markush) who happened to use in a claim a type of definition of a genus or subgenus by enumeration of species, which he did not devise and which had been used before in patent claims. prefix and postfix converter