904.01 Analysis of Claims
The breadth of the claims in the application should always be carefully noted; that is, the examiner should be fully aware of what the claims do not call for, as well as what they do require. During patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis.
904.01(a) Variant Embodiments Within Scope of Claim
Substantially, every claim includes within its breadth or scope one or more variant embodiments that are not disclosed in the application, but which would anticipate the claimed invention if found in a reference. The claim must be so analyzed and any such variant encountered during the search should be recognized.
In each type of subject matter capable of such treatment (e.g., a machine or other apparatus), the subject matter as defined by the claim may be sketched or diagrammed in order to clearly delineate the limitations of the claim. Two or more sketches, each of which is as divergent from the particular disclosure as is permitted by claim recitation, will assist the examiner in determining the claim’s actual breadth or scope. However, an applicant will not be required to submit such sketches of claim structure. In re Application filed November 16, 1945, 89 USPQ 280, 1951 C.D. 1, 646 O.G. 5 (Comm’r Pat. 1951).
904.01(b) Equivalents
All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter. See MPEP § 2181 - § 2184 for a discussion of equivalents when a claim employs means or step plus function terminology.
904.01(c) Analogous Arts [R-5]
Not only must the art be searched within which the invention claimed is classifiable, but also all analogous arts must be searched regardless of where the claimed invention is classified.
The determination of what arts are analogous to a particular claimed invention is at times difficult. It depends upon the necessary essential function or utility of the subject matter covered by the claims, and not upon what it is called by the applicant.
For example, for search purposes, a tea mixer and a concrete mixer may both be regarded as relating to the mixing art, this being the necessary function of each. Similarly a brick-cutting machine and a biscuit cutting machine may be considered as having the same necessary function. See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102.