809 Linking Claims
MPEP SECTION SUMMARY
 There are a number of situations which arise in which an application has claims to two or more properly divisible inventions, so that a requirement to restrict the claims of the application to one would be proper, but presented in the same case are one or more claims (generally called "linking" claims) which, if allowable, would require rejoinder of the otherwise divisible inventions. Further details on linking claims are covered here.
|
|
Linking claims and the inventions they link together are usually either all directed to products or all directed to processes (i.e., a product claim linking properly divisible product inventions, or a process claim linking properly divisible process inventions). The most common types of linking claims which, if allowable, act to prevent restriction between inventions that can otherwise be shown to be divisible, are
- (A) genus claims linking species claims; and
- (B) subcombination claims linking plural combinations.
Where an application includes claims to distinct inventions as well as linking claims, restriction can nevertheless be required.
809.02(a) Election of Species Required
MPEP SECTION SUMMARY
Where restriction between species is appropriate the examiner should send a letter including only a restriction requirement or place a telephone requirement to restrict (the latter being encouraged).
|
|
809.03 Restriction Between Linked Inventions
MPEP SECTION SUMMARY
Where an application includes two or more otherwise properly divisible inventions that are linked by a claim which, if allowable, would require rejoinder, the examiner should require restriction, either by a written Office action that includes only a restriction requirement or by a telephoned requirement to restrict (the latter being encouraged).
|
|
» 810 Action on the merits
