What are negative claim limitations?

What are negative claim limitations?

A negative claim limitation is language recited in a patent claim that speaks to the absence of a feature, as opposed to a positive claim limitation that recites the presence of a feature. Negative claim limitations may be recited with words such as “devoid,” “absence,” “without,” “(whatever)-less,” “not including,” “excluding,” “non-(whatever)” and the like.

When used properly, they can be an effective tool to distinguish your patent claims over the prior art.

Are negative claim limitations allowed?

According to MPEP § 2173.05(i), negative limitations may be claimed as long as they are clear and supported by the specification. Negative limitations must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for a negative limitation.

What constitutes basis in the original disclosure for an exclusion?

The MPEP does not require that the negative limitation be recited verbatim in the specification: “Note that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).” Otherwise, applicants may be unduly burdened in having to describe every known piece of prior art so as to expressly recite what is not included in their invention.

The following are examples of sufficient basis for negative limitations:

  • specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation (Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.)
  • specification describes alternatives (Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.)
  • description of prior art in the specification discusses shortcomings of certain features
  • drawings that show the presence of certain features which necessitates the absence of opposite features
  • specification explicitly describes the lack of a particular feature

The following are examples of insufficient basis for negative limitations:

  • attempting to avoid a prior art reference by simply excluding nickel from a named group of metals claimed for a metallic protective coating without providing a patentable basis for doing so (In re Langdon)

Is there a heightened written description standard for negative limitations?

In theory, the answer is no. Negative limitations need only satisfy 35 USC § 112 requirements in the same manner as positive limitations – i.e., the standard of particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention.

That being said, there has been a historical bias against the use of negative limitations. Patent examiners are humans and not machines, and those who have been around long enough to remember or have been trained with that bias may find it difficult now to accept exclusionary language. I once had a case where an examiner told me flat out that exclusionary language was unacceptable. I generally hate to recite MPEP sections, but I was compelled to mention Section 2173.05 since it clearly states that exclusionary language is allowed when properly used.

How useful was this post? (Did you find the information you needed?)

Click on a star to rate it!

Thank you for rating my post!

We want to do better.

Could you tell us what was missing in our post?

Frenda Williams
Frenda Williams
2023-02-21
I have had the pleasure of working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group on Trademark creation and contracts. As a solo and non-tech founder, the assistance, guidance and recommendations from Vic and his team have been INVALUABLE. And, with the knowledge that I have a Solid, well versed and caring legal team I can turn to, I have the confidence I need to navigate the intricacies of the tech industry as a solo founder. With that being said, If you’re a startup and you’re looking for a legal team that speaks your language, knows the industry and makes you feel like family…. Innovation Capital Law Group is a Perfect fit for you, your company and your team. Five out of Five Stars… don’t let their brilliance blind you 😁
Shiwei Liu
Shiwei Liu
2023-02-20
Excellent service and quick response. Lots of informative documents on its website.
Chang Chien Michael
Chang Chien Michael
2023-02-20
I have worked with iCap for more than 7 years. I am very glad with his professional knowledge that 7 utility patents were granted by USPTO. Vic and his team are very efficient and knowledgeable. Every time he can transcribe my design idea perfectly in two weeks and file it with no rejection from USPTO. The other service including the granted patent following up is always in time to remind me to take actions. That is why I still stick on iCap as my first priority when I want to file a US patent.
Mats Johansson
Mats Johansson
2023-02-20
We have been happy client for 10+ years. Awesome Patent Law Firm!
Hanson Chang
Hanson Chang
2023-02-16
Glad to write a review for Innovation Capital Law Group. We previously worked with a big law firm (2200 employees) on our patents, and decided to shift over to Innovation Capital. It was a great decision, this team got our patents done faster, more effectively, at a lower cost, and with broader claims. Win all around
Genevieve Springer
Genevieve Springer
2022-09-09
Clear, discernible tools and strategies couched within a business conceived from a genuine interest in doing right by founders.
InPlay Inc
InPlay Inc
2022-06-30
Vic and his team have been providing us with the best patent application experiences we could ever have in our entire career life! Their professionalism and technical knowledge have really saved us a lot of communication effort and time on the applications. Definitely highly recommend if anyone is looking for help with IP protection for their business.
Meg Crowley
Meg Crowley
2022-03-05
After working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group, our organization is confident our trademarks were solid and protected. Thank you team.
Andy Dong
Andy Dong
2022-02-28
I have been using Innovation Capital Law Group for a few years and continue to use them. They have provided an excellent services on our legal issues including intellectual properties and patents . They are very responsive, easy to work with and very competent . I highly recommend them.

Follow us

Copyright © Vic Lin 2023