Understanding the Markush Claim in Chemical Patents

both part of the patent-legal and scientific literature. The hall-mark of the Markush claim is language such as: "a member selected from the group con...
1 downloads 0 Views 548KB Size
Download PDF
UNDERSTANDING THE MARKUSH CLAIM IN CHEMICAL PATENTS* B Y EDWARD H. VALANCE Patent Department, Geigy Cliemical Corporation. Ardsley, New Y ork

reference t o Markush claims.' Representative c l a i m s 3 in t h e field of dyestuffs, i n d u s t r i a l c h e m i c a l s , a g r i c u l t u r a l c h e m i c a l s and p h a r m a ceuticals w e r e studied i n relationship to s e v e r a l s u b j e c t - c l a s s e s of chemical c l a i m s e m ploying M a r k u s h language: the single ingredient composition, the m u l t i - i n g r e d i e n t composition, the method of u s e , t h e p r o c e s s f o r making a composition and t h e a r t i c l e of m a n u f a c t u r e a s a c h e m i c a l composition. The r e l a t i v e frequency of v a r i o u s M a r k u s h e x p r e s s i o n s a l s o was t a b u lated and c o m p a r e d .

INTRODUCTION Among L i t e r a t u r e C h e m i s t s the following question i s s o m e t i m e s r a i s e d : "Why a r e c h e m i c a l patent c l a i m s s o difficult t o u n d e r s t a n d ? " F r o m studying c h e m i c a l c l a i m s of e v e r y type in s e v e r a l different c h e m i c a l f i e l d s i t i s a p p a r e n t that s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s of e x p r e s s i o n a r e encountered. Very often, s u c h p r o b l e m s have c e n t e r e d around the s o - c a l l e d "Markush" c l a i m , It was felt th,at p e r h a p s an u n d e r s t a n d ing of the philosophy behind the M a r k u s h e x p r e s s i o n i n c h e m i c a l c l a i m s might help t o understand b e t t e r the meaning of c h e m i c a l claims themselves While l e g a l opinion, 9,on infringement and validity of c h e m i c a l patent c l a i m s rightfully belongs t o the p r o v i n c e of t h e c h e m i c a l patent a t t o r n e y , n e v e r t h e l e s s the c h e m i s t i s often a s k e d by the a t t o r n e y f o r his valuable c o m m e n t s on, and explanation of, the c h e m i s t r y which is the subject m a t t e r of c h e m i c a l patent c l a i m s . A c l e a r understanding of c h e m i c a l c l a i m language i s , t h e r e f o r e , an a s s e t to the c h e m i s t i n t e r e s t e d in the c h e m i c a l patent l i t e r atu r e . P r e v i o u s p a p e r s (1,Z) have studied the language of chemical. p a t e n t s . Attention has been called t o t h e " s o m e t i m e s baffling" and s e e m i n g l y "absurd" idiom in which a r e c a s t c h e m i c a l patent c l a i m s . T h i s o b s c u r i t y in l a n guage has been explained a s due to t h e dual n a t u r e of c h e m i c a l c l a i m s , s i n c e they a r e a t once both p a r t of the p a t e n t - l e g a l and s c i e n t i f i c literature. The h a l l - m a r k of the M a r k u s h c l a i m i s language s u c h a s : "i3 m e m b e r s e l e c t e d f r o m the group consisting of .!I1 As will be s e e n f r o m t h i s study, a l a r g e n u m b e r of c h e m i c a l p a t e n t s have M a r k u s h c l a i m s . B e c a u s e of the f r e q u e n c y with which t h e c h e m i s t i s confronted by M a r k u s h c l a i m language, i t s i m p o r t a n c e should not have to be: l a b o r e d . The s t a t i s t i c s which have been compiled s p e a k c l e a r l y on t h i s point. A s a m p l e of 2 0 0 r e c e n t l y i s s u e d c h e m i c a l p a t e n t s a c c o r d i n g l y , was studied with s p e c i a l

.

NATURE O F MARKUSH CLAIM The p u r p o s e of the "Markush c l a i m " i s to c r e a t e an e x p r e s s i o n f o r one c l a s s of individual compounds which have common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r s i m i l a r c h e m i c a l and physical p r o p e r t i e s , o r which have s o m e o t h e r equivalent b a s i s f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n the s a m e a r t i f i c i a l group. In the beginning, the P a t e n t Office r e q u i r e d that a c e r t a i n rigid f o r m u l a be u s e d t o denote the fact that a M a r k u s h c l a i m w a s being used. This f o r m u l a took the f o r m of the language: "a m e m b e r s e l e c t e d f r o m t h e group consisting of A, B and C", w h e r e A, B and C might be individual compounds, g r o u p s , r a d i c a l s , e t c . F o r an excellent d i s c u s s i o n of t h e o r i g i n and p u r p o s e of M a r k u s h c l a i m s , the r e a d e r might consult M. C. R o s a ' s i n s t r u c t i v e a r t i c l e i n the J o u r n a l of the P a t e n t Office Society ( 3 ) . M r . Rosa i s p r e s e n t l y D i r e c t o r , P a t e n t E x a m ining O p e r a t i o n , United States P a t e n t Office. An example of a c l a i m 4 having such a Markush expression i s :

...

A n ester of phosphoric acid having the structure represented by the formula:

I bR1

E'

A3

wherein represents an alkyl radical containing from 1 to 10 carbon atoms, R represents a member of the group consistinR of alkyl radicals containing from 1 to 1 0 carbon atoms, alkenyl radicals having less than 1 0 carbon a t ms. and the perhaloalkyl radicals of from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and R?3 represents a member of the group consistin of the hydrogen atom and )the .d-w eol

ePresented before the Division of Chemical Literature, ACS St Louis Meeting, March 28, 1961.

87

88

EDWARD H. VALANCE

It once was e s s e n t i a l that f o r m a l language without s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a e be adhered t o in o r d e r that a Markush c l a i m should be accepted by the P a t e n t Office. However, it i s now p e r mitted t o u s e the s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a with s u i t able language such a s " m e m b e r of the group consisting of," a s in U S . P a t e n t 2,965,533. The difference between the s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a c l a i m and the Markush c l a i m without s t r u c t u r a l f o r mula i s m e r e l y a m a t t e r of f o r m . Even when the s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a i s employed, the g e n e r i c symbols which r e p r e s e n t v a r i o u s a t o m s o r r a d i c a l s m u s t be defined in approved Markush terminology.( 3) M o r e o v e r , it i s not now permitted--although it once was permitted--to u s e the e x p r e s s i o n "orl'when listing the v a r i o u s individuals within the l a r g e r Markush c l a s s . 5 Thus, we notice that the individual m e m b e r s , e.g., A, B and C a r e s o connected in the model Markush c l a i m above. In c l a i m 6 of U.S. P a t e n t 2,965,533 a l s o , R 2 i s defined by ' I . . the group con& the perhaloalkyl sisting of alkyl r a d i c a l s r a d i c a l s . . .I' ( e m p h a s i s added). The philosophy behind this ruling might be i n t e r p r e t e d thus: the c l a s s a s a whole i s being claimed and the claim i s thus "generic" to all of the individuals within the c l a s s . Indeed, the c l a i m i s not d i r e c t e d alternatively t o a plurality of individuals in the c l a s s . T h e r e f o r e , it would be i m p r o p e r to c l a i m "a m e m b e r s e l e c t e d f r o m the group consisting of A, B 01 C," since it would be a l t e r n a t i v e t o s o c l a i m the c l a s s . The c l a s s i s "A, B C" and i s an a b s t r a c t concept. The r e a s o n why the t e r m "or" i s not a p proved in chemical c l a i m language --and hence, one no longer finds such t e r m in U . S. P a t e n t c l a i m s - - i s , p e r h a p s , because the t e r m "or" has been stigmatized a s "alternative." T h e r e a r e those who believe such mechanical j u r i s p r u d e n c e r e a c h e s an illogical r e s u l t ( 4 ) . Indeed, it would s e e m that the Canadian Patent Office has chosen not to follow the U.S. P a t e n t Office in this r e gard ( 5 ) .

..

.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Out of 200 patents studied, a t l e a s t one r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c l a i m contained a Markush e x p r e s s i o n f o r approximately 4770 of the c l a i m s studied. T h u s , Table I shows that 9 3 patents out of the 200 studied contained a t l e a s t one c l a i m having a Markush e x p r e s s i o n t h e r e i n . TABLE I Markush Terminology In 200 Chemical Patents Abstracted In O.G. 761, No. 3, December 20, 1960 Claim

Oc c UTI enc es

Relative frequency

Composition Method (Process) Total

57

0.29 0.18 0.47

36 93

While i t i s t r u e that a Markush c l a i m i s complete and p r o p e r even if it omits the words "group consisting of," it can be s e e n f r o m Table I1 that this language "group consisting of" i s s t i l l u s e d in the m a j o r i t y of "true" Markush claims.6 AII alternative e x p r e s s i o n " c l a s s consisting of" i s a l s o u s e d , but in a l e s s e r number of c a s e s . (Of c o u r s e , p r o p e r Markush e x p r e s sion r e q u i r e s the p h r a s e "consisting of"7 whene v e r a Markush c l a i m i s used.)

TABLE I1 Markush Terminology in Chemical Composition Claims of 200 Patents Abstracted in O.G., 761, No. 3, December 20, 1960

Language used

Occurrences in claims absvacted

Relative frequency pats.

"Selected from" "Taken from" "Group consisting o f "Class consisting of'

86 1 95 12

0.43 0.005 0.475

0.06

pats. only 1.51 0.0178 1.68 0.21

Thus, the language "selected f r o m " i s not, s t r i c t l y speaking, r e q u i r e d in o r d e r that a Markush c l a i m should enjoy the benefits of such a f o r m and be acceptable to the Patent Office. It i s seen f r o m Table 11, however, that this l a n guage "selected f r o m " i s used in p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the c a s e s where Markush language i s employed. The above percentage frequency i s based upon the total n u m b e r of 200 patents whose r e p resentative c l a i m s w e r e studied. However, the frequency of such language was studied p r i m a r i l y in the composition c l a i m s . P e r h a p s a m o r e me; ningful m e a s u r e of the frequency, t h e r e f o r e , i s given by the other data in Table 11. Thus, it i s s e e n that the language "group consisting of" is u s e d , not only i n a m a j o r i t y of the composition c l a i m s studied, but a l s o m o r e than once in some composition c l a i m s , s o that the percentage frequency is g r e a t e r than 100 for the c a s e s studied. Another a s p e c t of the Markush claim studied was the variation of single ingredient composition c l a i m s and of multi-ingredient composition c l a i m s which c0ntai.n Markush e x p r e s s i o n s . By a "single ingredient" composition c l a i m i s m e a n t a single composition o r p u r e substance without admixture of other s u b s t a n c e s , for example, a p u r e chemical compound. A "multi-ingredient" composition, on the other hand, includes m o r e than one substance, such a s , f o r example, a m i x t u r e of two o r m o r e chemical compounds. Table I11 shows the r e s u l t s of this a s p e c t of the study.

UNDERSTANDING THE MARKUSH CLAIM I N CHEMICAL PATENTS

TABLE Ill Markush Language in 200 Chemical Composition, etc., Patents Abstracted in O.G., 161, No. 3, December 20, 1960 Occurrences in claims abstracted Single ingredient Multi- ingredient

23 34

Relative frequency All Composition pats. pats. only 0.12 0.11

0.40 0.60

In a f u r t h e r a s p e c t of this study i t b e c a m e a p p a r e n t that o t h e r complicated situations a r i s e in using M a r k u s h terminology f o r composition c l a i m s . The frequency of specific r a t h e r than g e n e r i c m e m b e r s of the Markush group in both the single and the m u l t i - i n g r e d i e n t composition c l a i m s was studied f o r those patents reviewed. By a "specific" .member of a M a r k u s h group is m e a n t a t e r m which r e p r e s e n t s one single substance o r m i x t u r e of s u b s t a n c e s , which t e r m m a y not be applied t o any other single substance o r definite m i x t u r e o f s u b s t a n c e s . T h u s , the t e r m "specific" excludes any g e n e r a l language which could include m o r e than one chemical compound, f o r e x a m p l e , o r p a r t of a chemical compound, s u c h a s r a d i c a l , within i t s scope. On the o t h e r hand, " g e n e r i c , " when applied t o a m e m b e r of a M a r k u s h group in this study, i s meant t o r e p r e s e n t a t e r m which stands f o r m o r e than one single individual chemical c o m pound o r s u b s t a n c e , r a d i c a l , e t c . In this study it w a s d i s c o v e r e d that while s o m e t e r m s in a Mairkush group could be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s s p e c i f i c , n e v e r t h e l e s s in the s a m e g r o u p t h e r e might be- a l s o g e n e r i c t e r m s . This event w a s denominated a s a "hybrid" o c c u r r e n c e and the Markush t e r m containing such mixed terminology was a l s o called a hybrid Mar ku s h t e r m The following c l a i m * i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s e s p e c r f i c , g e n e r i c and hybrid Markush t e r m s :

89

m e m b e r s of the group a r e specified a s t o ident i t y , although c e r t a i n l y it i s not obvious how many m e m b e r s a r e included since " m i x t u r e s " of the two specific s t e a r a t e s a r e included without any proportionality limitation. So, in one s e n s e this Markush e x p r e s s i o n i s specific and in another s e n s e it i s "hybrid," the l a t t e r being the c a s e if the t e r m " m i x t u r e s t h e r e o f ' ' be considered generic. As an example of an a r t i c l e of manufacture c l a i m having specific m e m b e r s in. a M a r k u s h e x p r e s s i o n , the following claim' i s i l l u s t r a t i v e : Permanently tacky and pressure-sensitive tape adhesive composition comprising a blend of (1) 1 0 0 parts by weight of solid polymeric vinyl alkyl ether having side chains of at least two and up to about eight carbon atoms and (2) about 2-40 parts of compatible nonheat advancing terpene phenolic resin selected from the group consisting of wood rosin substituted phenol and pinene substituted phenol.

This c l a i m r e p r e s e n t s a multi-ingredient c o m position which is in the f o r m of a manufactured a r t i c l e , n a m e l y , a p r e s s u r e - s e n s i t i v e tape. The second component of the tape i s a r e s i n which i s e i t h e r (i) "wood r o s i n substituted phenol," o r (ii) "pinene substituted phenol .'I Assuming t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s r e p r e s e n t definite and s p e cific s u b s t a n c e s , then it i s t r u e t o s a y that the Markush e x p r e s s i o n defining the group i s specific. An i l l u s t r a t i o n of a claimlo taken f r o m the dyestuff field is: Dyestuffs which correspond to the following general formula: CHzCH2CH2

I

.

A resinous composition of matter which comprises a polymer selected

from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride and copolymers of at least 10% of vinyl chloride and up to 30% of another monoethylenically unsaturated monomer, and a compound selected from the group consisting of butyl 9-carbobutoxystearate. butyl 10-carbobutoxystearate, and mixtures thereof. (Emphasis added.)

T h i s c l a i m i s a multi-ingredient composition c l a i m employing M a r k u s h e x p r e s s i o n s . The composition has a t l e a s t two s u b s t a n c e s in i t , n a m e l y , (i) a vinyl clhloride p o l y m e r , and (ii) a s t e a r a t e "compound." In the f i r s t Markush e x p r e s s i o n which d e s c r i b e s the PVC p o l y m e r , it i s s e e n that the m e m b e r s of t h i s M a r k u s h group a r e ( a ) PVC and (b) (certain c o p o l y m e r s of PVC and another m o n o m e r , not specifically defined. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s e x p r e s s i o n might be called a "hybrid" t e r m s i n c e i t contains a s p e c i f i c m e m b e r (PVC) and a g e n e r i c m e m b e r (copolymer of PVC with an unspecified m o n o m e r ) . On the o t h e r hand, looking a t the second M a r k u s h e x p r e s s i o n in the s a m e c l a i m , i t i s s e e n that the

wherein R represents a member selected from the group consisting of phenylene, chloro-phenylene, cyano-phenylene, methyl-phenylene, methoxy-phenylene and propoxyphenylene, and R 1 represents a lower alkyl group.

H e r e , again, i s s e e n a !'hybrid" Markush group. The t e r m l'phenylene'' f o r R i s s p e c i f i c , while "chlorophenylene," f o r example, i s ge n e r i c , t h e r e being s e v e r a l i s o m e r i c groups possible which a r e c e r t a i n l y d i s t i n c t individuals .I1 The following claim12 i l l u s t r a t e s a p r o c e s s f o r making a m e t a l . In t h i s c l a i m Markush l a n guage i s p r e s e n t in the p h r a s e "a m e t a l s e l e c t e d f r o m the group consisting of c a l c i u m , b a r i u m , s t r o n t i u m and lithium":

EDWARD H. VALANCE

90

A process for the production of a metal selected from the group consisting of calcium, barium, strontium, and lithium which comprises thermally decomposing an impure carbide of said selected metal to produce a gaseous mixture of elemental metal and carbon monoxide: passing said gaseous mixture to a purifying zone maintained a t a temperature above the condensation temperature of said elemental metal, said purifying zone containing at least one active refractory metal selected from the group consisting of titanium and zirconium; reacting said carbon monoxide with said active refractory metal in said purifying zone to form a t least one solid compound a t the temperature of said purifying zone; and passing said gaseous elemental metal to a cooling zone maintained a t a temperature below the condensation temperature of said metal to recover said elemental metal. (Emphasis added.)

This is an example of a c l a i m employing a Markush e x p r e s s i o n with specific t e r m s . The individual m e t a l s in the group a r e specifically named. It i s a l s o noteworthy that the m e t a l s a r e grouped in an a r t i f i c i a l , K t a natural group o r c l a s s . This is a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Markush claim. As an example of a u s e o r method c l a i m , the following c l a i m I 3 i s i l l u s t r a t i v e :

18 carbon atoms but not more than one is an aliphatic hydrocarbon radical having from 7 to 18 carbon atoms of R, R', R", R1, R2, R3, Rq and R g

In this c l a i m , a s t r u c t u r a l formula i s a l s o u s e d , the t e r m s of which f o r m u l a a r e defined with both hybrid and g e n e r i c Markush t e r m s . F o r e x a m p l e , Y i s defined a s "selected f r o m the c l a s s consisting of hydroxyl, amino, -OR5 where R 5 i s an aliphatic hydrocarbon radical having f r o m 1 t o 18 carbon a t o m s , " e t c . The foregoing i s a "hybrid" Markush e x p r e s s i o n . As a purely g e n e r i c e x p r e s s i o n , "R i s a straight-chain alkyl r a d i c a l having 1 t o 3 carbon atoms" i s observed. A simple example of a pharmaceutical p a t ent with Markush language in the c l a i m s i s the following : A compound selected from the group consisting of bases represented by the structural formula

Process of sizing cellulosic substances which comprises contacting said substances with an aqueous slurry of a cationic starch imino disubstituted carbamate represented by the formula NH

I

&--N

Starch--0--

/R1

and medicinally acceptable acid addition salts thereof.

b

wherein R 1 and R2 are a radical from the group consisting of alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkene, aryl and aralkyl.

H e r e , u s e of the substituted s t a r c h c o m pound f o r sizing cellulosic substances i s claimed. What i s c l a i m e d , t h u s , i s the method of sizing cellulosic substances by the u s e of a cationic s t a r c h imino disubstituted c a r b a m a t e , which is defined with a s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a whose t e r m s a r e f u r t h e r defined with a g e n e r i c Markush expression. F r o m the field of a g r i c u l t u r a l c h e m i c a l s , an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the method o r u s e claim14 i s the following: The method of inhibiting the multiplication of plant viruses comprising applying to plants a virus growth-inhibiting quantity of a compound of the formula:

This claim15 i l l u s t r a t e s the u s e of both a s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a and the f a m i l i a r Markush language a s a means of representing a family of c o m pounds. This Markush e x p r e s s i o n i s certainly g e n e r i c , since both m e m b e r s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d by g e n e r i c e x p r e s s i o n s , the f i r s t expression being the s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a with the "floating" dibenzylaminomethyl substituent representing t h r e e distinct b a s e s , the second e x p r e s s i o n , "medicinally acceptable acid addition s a l t s t h e r e o f , " being broad in scope and a l s o g e n e r i c . Table *V i s a s u m m a r y of data relating t o t h e s e v a r . < i s specific, generic and hybrid Markush e x p r e s s i c n s . TABLE IV Differentiation of Markush Language In Composition Claims Of 200 Patents Abstracted In O.G. 761. No. 3, December 20, 1960

wherein R is a straight-chain alkyl hydrocarbon radical having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, R', R", R 1 and R2 are selected from the class consisting of hydrogen and aliphatic hydrocarbon radicals having from 1 to 18 carbon atoms, Y is selected from the class consisting of hydroxyl, amino, -OR5 where R 5 is an aliphatic hydrocarbon radical having from 1 to 18 carbon atoms, - OX where X is an alkali metal and

R3--N-

I

- R4

where R3 and Rq are selected from the class consisting of hydrogen and aliphatic hydrocarbon radicals having from 1 t o 18 carbon atoms, provided a t least one is an aliphatic hydrocarbon radical of from 1 to

Term remesentative of class or group within Markush

Specific Generic Hybrid

Number of occurrences

pau* abstracted

camp*

44 48 22

Single ingred comp. pats.

Multi-ingred. comp. pats.

13 17

31 31

15

7

In Table V , the data of Table IV a r e e x p r e s s e d a s d e c i m a l s t o show the relative f r e quency of o c c u r r e n c e of the specific g e n e r i c and hybrid e x p r e s s i o n s i n the Markush c l a i m s studied.

91

UNDERSTANDING THE MARKUSH CLAIM IN CHEMICAL PATENTS

TABLE V Frequency Of Various Markush Classes In Composition Claims Of 200 Chemical Patents Abstracted In O.G. 761, No. 3, December 20, 1960 Term reoresentative of class

or

Markush Specific Generic Hybrid

Relative frequency Total, all Single ingred. Multi-inged. Total, com. pats. comp. pats. comp. pats. all pats. abstracted only only abstracted 0.77 0.84 0.39

0.57 0.74 0.65

0.91 0.91 0.21

0.22 0.24 0.11

F r o m Table V it i s s e e n that the "hybrid" type of Markush e x p r e s s i o n i s much l e s s f r e quent than the s i m p l e g e n e r i c o r specific e x p r e s s i o n . It i s a l s o c l e a r that s o m e composition c l a i m s contain Marklush g r o u p s which a r e d e fined by g e n e r i c t e r m s while in the s a m e c l a i m o t h e r M a r k u s h groups a r e defined by specific terms. Another complication in the M a r k u s h c l a i m i s the p r e s e n c e of a "Markush group within a M a r k u s h group"16 which o c c u r s in s o m e c l a i m s . 17 An i l l u s t r a t i o n of t,his situation follows: A motor fuel for internal combustion engines consisting essentially of a leaded gasoline and from 0.0025 to 0.05% by weight of a boron compound selected from the group consisting of (1)

confusion; however, t h e r e a r e t i m e s when i t a p p e a r s difficult t o find a b e t t e r way of e x p r e s s i n g what i s c l a i m e d . It can be observed f r o m Table VI that such complicated e x p r e s s i o n s a r e relatively i n f r e quent, even when considering the s m a l l e r n u m b e r of composition patents only. TABLE VI Complex Markush Expressions In Composition Claims of 2 0 0 Chemical Patents Abstracted In O.G. 761, No. 3, December 20, 1960 Composition claim

Number of claims containing Markush within Markush

Relative frequency composition pats. only

Single ingiedient Multi-ingredient A l l composition claims

3 4 7

0.053

0.070 0.123

Finally, f o r c o m p a r i s o n p u r p o s e s , the v a r i a t i o n in the type of chemical c l a i m in the 200 patents studied was tabulated and i s s e t f o r t h in Table VII. TABLE VI1 Variation Of Subject Matter In 200 Chemical Patents Abstracted In O.G., 761, No. 3, December 20, 1960

where X is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen and

and (2)

Patent

Occurrence

Relative frequency

Composition Method (Process) Apparatus

89 101 10

0.44

0.51 0.05

In Table VII, the t e r m "composition" e m b r a c e s patents having a t l e a s t a single a n d / o r multi-ingredient composition claim. The t e r m "method ( p r o c e s s ) " includes method of u s e c l a i m s a s well a s p r o c e s s of manufacture c l a i m s . And the t e r m " a p p a r a t u s , " of c o u r s e , includes s t r u c t u r e s and devices useful in the chemical a r t s . The a p p a r a t u s claim18 does not usually contain M a r k u s h e x p r e s s i o n s since t h e s e a r e r e s e r v e d f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of c h e m i cal compounds.

CONCLUSION

In this c l a i m the l a r g e r M a r k u s h group i s m a d e up of two s m a l l e r groups of compounds, e a c h r e p r e s e n t e d by a s t r u c t u r a l f o r m u l a which i s defined in t e r m s of s t i l l f u r t h e r M a r k u s h l a n guage. Thus, h e r e i s a c a s e of a "Markush within a Markush." Technically, of 'course, the whole group of compounds defined by the c l a i m a s a unit i s the t r u e M a r k u s h group. But the f o r m of the e x p r e s s i o n is o t h e r w i s e . This c a u s e s s o m e

A word of caution m u s t be added a s a guide t o an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d a t a d i s c u s s e d above. The m e r e f a c t that something a p p e a r s in the c l a i m s of one chemical patent does not m e a n that the s a m e thing would be p r o p e r i n o t h e r subsequent chemical p a t e n t s . The views and policy of the P a t e n t Office a r e s e e n t o evolve and develop like all dynamic e n t e r p r i s e s . What i s p e r m i t t e d today, a s we have s e e n , m a y be f o r bidden o r r e s t r i c t e d t o m o r r o w . But this f a c t only u n d e r s c o r e s the need f o r continuing study of chemical patents by the c h e m i s t . F r o m the foregoing l i m i t e d d a t a , m o r e o v e r , i t does not s e e m valid t o d r a w broad g e n e r a l i zations a s t o the r e l a t i v e frequency of the

EDWARD H. VALANCE

92

v a r i o u s Markush e x p r e s s i o n s studied. Howe v e r , the apparently t r i v i a l s t a t i s t i c s r e p r e s e n t a valid point of d e p a r t u r e f o r l e a r n i n g

m o r e about the language and semantic s t r u c t u r e of chemical c l a i m s which a r e being publ i s h e d at the p r e s e n t t i m e .

BIBLIOGRAPHIES H. T. Stowell, "The Language Of Chemical Patents," September 16, 1955, paper presented to the Division of Chemical Literature a t the ACS Meeting, Minneapolis. A. J. Nydick, "How To Read A Patent," September 16, 1955, Paper Presented to the Division of Chemical Literamre a t the ACS Meeting, Minneapolis. M. C. Rosa, "Outline of Practice Relative to 'Markush' Claims," Journal of the Patent Office Society, Vol. 34, pp. 324 ff. (1952).

(4) R 1. Coulter, "Comments on 'Alternativeness' in Claims," Journal of the Patent Office Society, Vol. 33, pp. 819 ff. (1951). (5) M. J. Markus, "Chemical Patents." Chemistry In Canada, August, 1959. p. 33

REFERENCES

(1) Ex parte Markush. 340 O.G. 839. While this Markush patent was

not the first to employ this language, this seems to be the first Patent Office case deciding the propriety of such language U.S. Patent No. 1,472,048.Y e.%. Claim 2). (2) Official Gazette of U.S. Patent Office, Vol. 761, pages 77 and followin!.? (cited herein as 761 O.G. 77). (3) See U.S.-Patents 2,965,450; 2,965,452-2,965,650, inclusive. (4) U.S. Patent 2,965,533, Claim 6. (5) An early U.S. Patent (No. 901,675) has an R described as standing for a " m e t h y l z carboxyl" group (emphasis added). (6) While the structural formula claims are really Markush claims also G,U.S. Patent 2,131,206; Ex parte Moll and Britton, 81 USPQ 417), this paper excludes such claims from the designation "true" Markush claim, unless such claims also contain some "group consisting o f . .," etc. Markush language, ( 7 ) The expression "consisting of" is. always allowed in Markush claims, while "comprising" is prohibited. This policy is based on the special meaning given to these terms whereby "consisting o f ' implies no more than the specific individuals listed in a class, whereas "comprising" signifies that the class is certainly made up of the indikduai; l i s k d and may be made up of &r unlisted or unspecified individuals. (8) U.S. Patent 2,665,598, Claim 3. (9) U.S. Patent 2,965,592, Claim 1. (10) U.S. Patent 2,965,644, Claim 1.

(cf.

x.,

.

(11) It is important to distinguish between l a n p a g and effective & m + : The Markush claim embraces a group of compounds or indiwdual compositions, although the term "Markush" is loosely applied to various parts of a structural formula, which parts may be defined using Markush expressions. See Ex parte Moll e t al., 81 USPQ 447. (12) U.S. Patent 2,965,475, Claim 1. (13) U.S. Patent 2,965,518, Claim 1. (14) U.S. Patent 2,965,534, Claim 1. (15) U.S. Patent 2,965,646, Claim 4. (16) The U.S. Patent Office restricts the use of the "Markush group within a Markush group" to those cases wherein so many possibilities are not generated as to extend the general concept beyond what is fairly disclosed. S e e Ex parte Dotter, 12 U.S.P.Q. 382 and In r e Archbold 1946 C.D. 63. (17) U.S. Patent 2,965,459, Claim 1. 118) Ex arte Clark and Malm, 11 USPQ 52; In Ex parte S afford, 66 USQ : 361, 362 it is said that: . . ThemiaMwas devised to meet particularly the situation presented by chemical cases for conveniently expressing a broad claim involving certain actions of several chemical compounds, which, in general, were not associated as a recognized group but yet had a common properzy that rendered them equivalent in the particular situation involved. It does not seem that this reason applies in mechanical elements since they can be fairly defined as to structure by ordinary language and since their simple m e chanical action is considered obvious beforehand

".

"