ABOUT AUTHORS:
Mohit kumar*, Vishal Sachdeva,
Seth G. L. Bihani S. D. College of Technical Education,
Sri Ganganagar (RAJASTHAN) 335001, INDIA
*mohigarg30@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
A well drafted application decides the fate of an invention. Drafting plays a vital role in the success of an invention during its prosecution, management and maintenance during its tenure and turning it into cash. Drafting a patent application is one of the most important and at the same time one of the most difficult process. The applicant or his agent should so draft a patent application that it is granted with an adequate scope or ambit so as to fully serve the business purpose(s) for which the patent is meant to be used. It is here that the importance of drafting the claims in a patent must be fully appreciated, as the drafting of claims must always be done with a clear focus on the exact business needs that are sought to be served by it. That is, a business strategy perspective must inform the thinking of the one who takes up the task of drafting the patent claims. The ultimate purpose of every business strategy is to ensure that a business makes the desired amount of profit to justify the risks taken in making the investments of resources and time. Similarly, the purpose of drafting claims should be to fully serve the business strategy at hand. Even so, only a small number of well drafted patents are actually used by businesses to help them to make or safeguard their profits. (Swarbrick James, 2007).
REFERENCE ID: PHARMATUTOR-ART-1695
INTRODUCTION
There are many types of reasons as to why a patented invention, which is technically feasible is not found to be commercially viable or profitable. Yet, no patent must be sought that has poorly drafted claims, as such a patent may prove to be only a financial burden. So, the primary focus of this article is to make businesses aware of the pitfalls of recklessly filing patents, without devoting attention to drafting of good claims. Countries have different approaches and different legal principles in relation to the interpretation of patent claims. In the case of European countries, a harmonized system for the grant of European patents was instituted under the European Patent Convention (EPC), which came into force in 1977. Historically, however, variations have existed in the courts' approaches in the different EPC countries to claim construction even though there has been a convergence in the approach in the courts of European countries. This article largely exemplifies claim drafting as practiced in the USA, or what is known as US- style patent claim construction in order to create a potentially valuable patent (Jeanne c. Fromer, 2008).
What are patent claims ?
To begin with, the applicant should file the patent application in the prescribed form and manner at the national or regional office in order to get a patent. The format of a patent application differs from one country to another. Basically, however, it follows a fairly standardized list of items, of which, in our present context, the detailed description of the invention and the claims are the most important. The description of the invention should disclose the invention clearly and precisely to enable a person skilled in the art to understand the claimed invention and the technical information contained in it so as to practice the invention without undue experimentation. The application concludes with one or more claims those define particularly and distinctly the invention. Claims define the scope or boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights.
From the view point of patent owners, claims are the heart of a patent. The description may teach how to make and use the invention whereas the claims define the scope of legal protection. For example, the claims demarcate in words the boundary of invention, just like a picket-fence defines the extent of land covered by a deed for a piece of land. Much of what is shown and described in a patent may not be protected by the patent because only the technology covered in the claims is protected. If an applicant or his agent has not properly drafted the claims, then any aspects or elements of the invention which are contained in the detailed description in the patent application, but are not covered by the claims become a part of the prior art, but only when the patent application is published or when the patent is granted. That is, all other would be free to use all that unprotected information without the patent owner’s permission, and the patent owner would not be able to do anything about it.
As a result, most patent agents would like to draft the claims as broadly as possible to cover all aspects of an invention as described in the detailed description of it but also all its equivalents or likely future versions. However, a competent patent examiner in a patent office would not allow inadequately broad claims that cover more than what the inventor actually invented, and would generally like to narrow the claims to the actual invention as described in the detailed description (Robert C. Faber2004).
The claims may be broad or narrow in their scope or breadth. Normally, broad claims include fewer elements or limitations than narrow claims do, and can be very valuable because they can cover a range of valuable products or situations, but can be more difficult to obtain and to enforce because there may be a broader range of prior art that may block or invalidate them. Narrow claims are generally very specific to one particular element or product. In general, a narrow claim specifies more details than a broader claim.
Such patents are easier to obtain and enforce because there may be less prior art that may block or invalidate them. If a patent claims the exact products and processes of the company, the patent may be less useful as a business tool because it may permit competitors to easily enter the companies’ market with insignificantly modified products and services. Better patents tend to include a significantly large number of claims with a mix of broad and narrow claims (Swarbrick James, 2007).
claims(rules)
The claims of a patent define the property of the inventor. Everything else is merely explanation. Anything which is described but not properly and carefully claimed becomes freely available for public use. Claim drafting is a highly specialized skill, and it is not recommended that inventors try to draft their own claims. However, inventors should understand some basic facts about patent claims, so they can tell whether their attorney is working hard and fighting for their best interests, or taking an easy way out and settling for claims that are too narrow to offer any real protection against infringers.
There are two basic rules:
1. Every “limitation” in a claim must be in-fringed for that claim to be infringed.
2. If any claim in a patent is infringed, then that entire patent is infringed.
The patent owner does not need to show infringement of more than one claim. The first rule acts as a major warning for inventors. In the broadest claims, do not include any limitations that are not absolutely essential. Every limitation in any independent claim should have a clear reason for being in that claim, and the only two reasons for including a limitation in an independent claim are
(1) to define and describe the invention, or
(2) to avoid prior art. For example, suppose invent a machine with seven essential parts (A through G), and an optional part H, which helps it work better. Your broadest claim (which will be an independent claim that stands alone and does not refer to any other claim) should specify only parts A through G. It will also need to specify the relationship between those parts; it must describe how the machine is constructed and/or how it functions; you cannot claim a machine merely by listing its parts. After you have listed essential parts A through G in an independent claim, part H should be specified in a dependent claim, which will be written in a form such as, “The machine of Claim 1, which also contains part H.” Why is it done this way? Well, if your broadest claim lists all eight components (A through H), then competitors can “avoid” that claim (they can make, use, and sell that invention without paying royalties) by getting rid of part H, or replacing it with some other item. After the patent attorney has drafted the claims, study every word carefully. See if any words can be taken out while still distinguishing your invention from the prior art. And, because of rule 2, try to draft several independent claims from several different angles, using different phrases. One of those claims might cover it in a way that other claims missed. While you’re working with a patent attorney, don’t be afraid to question, challenge, and probe. It’s your child, and you’re paying the bills. A good attorney won’t get upset, any more than you should get upset at him if he challenges you to back up your assertions. In a good relationship, each side works hard while challenging the other side to do the same. If an attorney can’t or won’t clearly explain why he did something, or why he used a certain phrase in a claim, that’s a danger sign. Patents aren’t really scientific documents; they’re legal and business documents, and the essence of both law and business is conflict and competition. Patent examiners get paid to challenge your application and find any flaws. And if your patent becomes valuable, people who want to infringe or ignore it will try even harder to find any flaws in it. It’s best to find those flaws before an application is filed, even if it means a bit of a struggle.
Defination of claims
Claims are the essence of a patent. The claims define the invention which the inventor holds as his exclusive property and has the right to exclude others from making, using and selling. The claims specify the scope of ownership in a piece of property, i.e. Intellectual Property. These claims are of paramount importance in both patent prosecution in the Patent Office and patent litigation in the courts. Therefore, during claim drafting the choice of words used in the patent claims should be dealt in a great understanding and thought(patentwire.co.in).
points considered while drafting patent claims:
* Each claim should be a single sentence and should be clearly worded.
* Each claim should be precise and without unnecessary repetition.
* Rights are given to claims only, not for any matter described in the complete specification.
* Claims define the boundaries of legal protection and form a protective fence around the invention.
* Each claim is evaluated on its own merit and, therefore, if one of the claims is objected, it does not mean that the rest of the claims are invalid.
Tips on Drafting Claims
Figure out the all essential features or elements of your invention that you want to claim rights to.
* Start with broadest claims of your invention and then progress to narrower claims.
* Start claims on a new page and number each claim using Arabic numbers starting with 1
* Precede your claims with a short statement such as “I/We claim: …”
- Each claim should consist of an introduction, linking word, and body.
- The first claim would be the Independent claim and subsequent claim would be dependent claims. And, these claims should be linked so as to form a single inventive concept.
- There is no restriction to the number of claims to be incorporated in the specification. But the applicanthas to pay additional fee, if there are more than ten claims.
- Claims must be supported by the description and should be based on the description. This means that all the characteristics of the invention that form the part of the claims must be fully explained in the description.
NOW YOU CAN ALSO PUBLISH YOUR ARTICLE ONLINE.
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE/PROJECT AT articles@pharmatutor.org
Subscribe to Pharmatutor Alerts by Email
FIND OUT MORE ARTICLES AT OUR DATABASE
BASIC STRUCTURE OF CLAIMS
A patent claim is composed of three parts:
1. Preamble/Introductory Phrase/Prior Art;
2. Main body of the claim or Inventive part of the claim; and
3. The linking word that joins the two. Preamble Linking (patentwire.co.in).
Types of Claims
On the basis of Drafting
• Independent
• Dependent
• Omnibus
On the basis of Invention
• Product
• Process or Method
• Apparatus
• Use
On the basis of Field
• Jepson Claim
• Markush Claim
• Swiss Claim
On the basis of Structure
• Pure structure
• Structure plus function
• Means plus function
• Structure is function
• Pure function
• Step plus function
1. ON THE BASIS OF DRAFTING
• Independent Claim: The claim which covers all the significant characteristics of the invention is called IndependentClaim. Generally, the first claim is Independent Claim which reflects the whole picture of the invention.
Example:A method of preparing an electronic device comprising: providing a metal containing substance converting the metal containing substance into a non stoichiometric non equilibrium crystalline nanomaterial; and processing the nanomaterial into an electronic component, wherein the domain size of the nanomaterial is confined to a dimension less than the mean free path of electrons in the material composition.
• Dependent Claim: The claim which depends on a claim or several claims is called dependent claim. Generally, the subsequent claims of an Independent claim are Dependent Claim.
• Omnibus Claim: Omnibus claim is used to broaden the scope of the invention beyond the claims section. In other words, Omnibus claim claimed the other parts of the invention which is disclosed in the specification or drawing but not claimed in the above mentioned claims. The words such as "substantially as described" or "substantially as described with reference to the drawings" or "substantially as described herein" are commonly used to claim as Omnibus Claim.
2. ON THE BASIS OF INVENTION
• Product Claim:The claim which claims the actual product of the invention is called Product Claim. For example: a chemical compound, compound used as pharmaceuticals, composition mixtures such as alloy, food, drink etc.
A pharmaceutical compositioncomprising: a) an amido amine polymer comprising an amido amine dendrimer derived from:
(i) a multiamine; and
(ii)a multifunctional compound comprising two or more amine reactive groups; and b) a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient.
• Process Claim: The claim which claims a new process or method to achieve the desired result is called Process Claim. For example: Methods of preparation, methods of analysis, method of treatment etc.
A bioassisted method for treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated soil employing a blend of selective microbes, the method comprising; isolating the microbes, which are capable of releasing oil from the contaminated soil/gravel particles, adding the isolated microbes into said soil to release the oils, adding separately isolated microbes, which are capable of degrading the released oils, providing optimized nutrient for the microorganisms, and aerating the same by periodic mixing of the oil contaminated soil water slurry or by air sparging to treat the contaminated soil.
• Apparatus Claim:The product claim claimed for a device or a system or an article is called Apparatus Claim.
• Use Claim: The process claim claimed for use of the products or application of the process is called Use Claim.
• Jepson Claim:Jepson claim style is used in the process or product claim where the invention is a modification or the improvement of the existing technology. The word “wherein…” often used to structure the Jepson Claim.
• Markush Claim: Markush Claim is generally used to structure the chemical invention where the composition of the invention has to be described in a structural diagram or formula based.
• Swiss Claim:The structure of claim used to claim the second or new medicinal use of the known substances or compositions is known as Swiss type claim. India does not allow this type of claim under the provision of section 3(d) of the Patent Act, 1970.
• Pure Structure: A method of structuring claim where the part of an invention ‘A’ is structurally linked to the part ‘B’.
Example: A switch connected to a lamp
• Structure plus function: A method of structuring claim where the part of an invention ‘A’ is functionally linked to the part ‘B’.
Example: A switch for controlling a signal to a lamp
• Means plus function: A method of structuring claim where the part of an invention ‘A’ is an element for achieving the part ‘B’.
Example: Means for signaling with a lamp
• Structure is function: A method of structuring claim where invention defines structure and/or function.
Example: Signal Lamp
• Pure function:A method of structuring claim where the part of an invention ‘A’ is functioning with the part ‘B’. Example: Signaling lamp with the switch
• Step plus function: A method of structuring claim where the part of an invention ‘A’ is a stepfor the function of part ‘B’.
Example: Step for signaling the lamp with the switch
• abstract
An abstract should be drafted in such a manner to make it reflect the technical field of the invention with the existing technical problems and the solution to overcome such problems. It should be briefly drafted and within the limit of 150 words. The aim of abstract should be to provide the better information to third parties.(patentwire.co.in).
NONOBVIOUSNESS IN PATENT
In the first "Patents and Property" column, Erik Ledbetter wrote that patent protection is the cornerstone on which the pharmaceutical industry's tremendous investment in research and development rests. Mr. Ledbetter noted that there are three basic requirements for patentability: an invention must be new, nonobvious, and useful. The most difficult hurdle for a patent applicant to overcome and often the key issue in determining the validity of a patent in litigation.
Nonobviousness Requirement and the Concepts
if an invention is new, a patent may not be obtained "if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." a number of different concepts are involved in considering the issue of nonobviousness, including the concepts of prior art, a person having ordinary skill in the art, and the time the invention was made.
Prior art is defined as prior patents, published patent applications, journal articles and other references upon which a patent examiner considering a patent application or a person seeking to invalidate a patent can rely.
A person having ordinary skill in the art means a person of average skill in the technology to which the invention pertains, not an expert in that technology. It is important to note that the level of ordinary skill can vary depending on the invention involved and in fact can be quite high. For example, in the field of biotechnology, a person of ordinary skill in the art may well be a person with a Ph.D., because the average biotech scientist has a Ph.D.
The time the invention was made is another important factor to understand. After a patent application is filed, a long period of time often elapses before the application is taken up for examination. In particular, biotech patent applications have sometimes experienced long waits for examination due to the large number of applications filed relative to the number of examiners capable of examining those applications. During the period between filing and examination, the state of the art may have changed significantly. This is particularly true in fast-moving technologies such as biotechnology. Thus, it is important for the examiner to keep in mind that the question to be answered is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the state of the art at the time the invention was made, not at the time it is being examined. Similarly, for a patent in litigation, it is important to keep in mind that the relevant time frame for evaluating the obviousness of the invention claimed in the patent is the time the invention was made, not the time of the litigation, which may be many years after the invention was made. While an invention may seem obvious in view of the state of the art at the time of the litigation, it may not have been obvious at the time it was made
Issues to Consider in an Obviousness Analysis
Various aspects involved in the obviousness analysis were discussed by the Supreme , the Supreme Court set forth three factual inquiries to be used in considering whether an invention is obvious or nonobvious:
(i) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
(ii) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and
(iii) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Also, secondary considerations such as unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt need, and the failure of others are to be considered in evaluating the obviousness or nonobviousness of an invention.Further, the principles set forth below must be followed when conducting an obviousness analysis:
(a) The claimed invention must be considered as a whole;
(b) The references must be considered as a whole and must suggest the desirability and thus the obviousness of making the combination;
(c) The references must be viewed without the benefit of impermissible hindsight afforded by the claimed invention; and
(d) Reasonable expectation of success is the standard by which obviousness is determined
(dougweller.com/novelty.html)
Obviousness Analysis at the Patent Office
The Patent Office has incorporated these standards into the obviousness analysis carried out during the examination of a patent application. To reject a claimed invention as obvious, a patent examiner must establish what is called a prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when three basic criteria have been met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the prior art cited by the examiner or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or combine the references being relied upon to reject the claimed invention. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Third, the prior art reference or combination of references must teach or suggest all of the requirements of the claimed invention.
The suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art reference or combine the prior art references being relied upon to reject the claimed invention must be found either in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art; it cannot be based on hindsight benefiting from the disclosure of the claimed invention. In this regard, it should be noted that simply because prior art can be combined or modified does not mean that the combination or modification is obvious. Rather, the prior art must also suggest the desirability of making the combination or modification.
For prior art to be modified or combined to reject a claimed invention, there must be a reasonable expectation of success., a claimed invention directed to a method for treating depression with amitriptyline or nontoxic salts thereof was rejected as prima facie obvious over prior art disclosures that amitriptyline is a compound known to possess psychotropic properties and that imipramine is a structurally similar psychotropic compound known to possess antidepressive properties, combined with prior art suggesting that these compounds would be expected to have similar activity because the structural difference between the compounds involves a known bioisosteric replacement and because a research paper comparing pharmacological properties of these two compounds suggested clinical testing of amitriptyline as an antidepressant. The court sustained the rejection after determining that the teachings of the prior art provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable expectation of success.
Responding to an Obviousness Rejection
Once a patent examiner rejects a claimed invention by presenting what he or she considers to be a prima facie case of obviousness, a patent applicant must then present arguments showing that the examiner actually has not established a prima facie case of obviousness and/or present secondary evidence to rebut the examiner's prima facie case.
For example, if the examiner has rejected the claimed invention based a combination of prior art references, the applicant could argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the references. Also, the applicant might be able to argue that even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination proposed by the examiner, one still would not have arrived at the claimed invention, because the prior art combination does not teach or suggest all of the requirements of the claimed invention.
In addition, or as an alternative to arguing that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, the applicant can present secondary evidence to rebut the prima facie case.
For example, the applicant can present comparative experimentation demonstrating the unexpected superiority of the claimed invention. To be persuasive, the showing of unexpected superiority must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, and it must compare the claimed invention with the closest example disclosed in the prior art. For instance, if the key element in a process for making pharmaceutical composition involves adding a particular component to a mixture in an amount of 30 to 50 weight percent, and if the closest prior art includes examples in which that component is added in amounts of 10 and 20 weight percent, experiments should desirably be conducted comparing (A) 30, 40 and 50 weight percent invention examples (rather than just a 40 weight percent invention example, which would likely not be considered representative of the overall scope of the claimed invention) with (B) the 20 weight percent prior art example (since that is the prior art example which is closest to the claimed invention).
There are essentially five patentability requirements. In order for a claimed invention to be patented each of these requirements must be satisfied. The claimed invention must be (1) comprised of patent eligible subject matter; (2) useful; (3) novel; (4) non-obvious; and (5) adequately described (Wood A. 2003)
NOW YOU CAN ALSO PUBLISH YOUR ARTICLE ONLINE.
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE/PROJECT AT articles@pharmatutor.org
Subscribe to Pharmatutor Alerts by Email
FIND OUT MORE ARTICLES AT OUR DATABASE
THE NONOBVIOUSNESS REQUIREMENT
Obviousness is a critical element to patentability. In essence, even if the applicant can demonstrate patentable subject matter, utility and novelty, the patent will not issue if the invention is trivial. In order to determine if an invention is trivial it is necessary to see if there was motivation in the prior art to do what the inventor has done. If the prior art does not explicitly, and with identity of elements, teach the invention, the patent applicant may still be thwarted if there are a number of references that, when combined, would produce the claimed invention.
A patent may not be obtained if it contains only obvious differences from n prior art. An invention is obvious if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. The obviousness inquiry is highly fact specific and not susceptible to per se rules. Defendant cannot simply present evidence of anticipation and then say “ditto” to establish obviousness. Nevertheless, for a patent to be nonobvious it must display “ingenuity beyond the compass” of a person of ordinary skill in the art (bhateponkshe.com/patents.htm).
In a nutshell, an invention would be obvious when someone knowledgable about the area would look at your invention and consider it to be already known; not exactly but rather known if one were to combine several references. In other words, the predictable and non-unique combination of what multiple references teach would yield your invention. The prototypical example is when you have invented A+B. A is known in the prior art, and B is known in the prior art. Upon looking at A and then looking at B, would someone of skill in the art consider A+B to be already known? If the answer is yes, then A+B is obvious. If the answer is no, then A+B is not obvious. Sometimes combining things is not readily apparent, sometimes it is. That is what makes obviousness a tricky inquiry. Obviousness is a fact based and subjective inquiry, and in my experience many inventors are simply not capable of making an honest determination. Frequently inventors are blinded by the fact that no single reference describes the invention in total. That is the first step, but that exact identity relates to novelty. Obviousness is the next step in the road to patentability, and a significant hurdle.
While the obviousness inquiry asks about whether something is a trivial, non-inventive combination of prior art references, the inquiry is not boundless. For example, hindsight is not permissible. Therefore, in order to demonstrate obviousness the patent examiner would need to establish that there existed some reason to anticipate that one could successfully combine A and B to result in A+B.
The obviousness determination is based on four factual inquiries:
(1) The differences between the prior art and challenged claims;
(2) The level of ordinary skill in the field of the pertinent art at the time of plaintiff’s invention;
(3) What one possessing that level of skill would have deemed to be obvious from the prior art reference; and
(4)Objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness.Notwithstanding these factual inquiries.
Objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness must also be considered before reaching a conclusion on obviousness. Objective evidence includes:
(1) The commercial success of the invention;
(2) Whether the invention satisfied a long felt need in the industry;
(3) Failure of others to find a solution to the problem at hand; and
(4) Unexpected results.
In determining what would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the decision maker may examine the following factors:
(1) Type of problems encountered in the art;
(2) Prior art solutions to those problems;
(3) Rapidity with which innovations are made;
(4) Sophistication of the technology;
(5) Educational level of the inventor(dougweller.com/novelty.html)
Adequate Description Requirement –
The crux of this so-called adequate description requirement is that once the first four patentability requirements are satisfied the applicant still must describe the invention with enough particularity such that those skilled in the art will be able to make, use and understand the invention that was made by the inventor. For the most part this requirement can be explained as consisting of three major parts. First is the enablement requirement, next is the best mode requirement and finally is the written description requirement.
The enablement requirement requires the inventor to describe his or her invention in a manner that would allow others in the industry to make and use the invention. Enablement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.
The best mode requirement requires the inventor to disclose his or her preferred way of carrying out the invention at the time the patent application is filed. There is no requirement that the inventors preferred embodiment be updated as the patent application works its way through the PTO. Best mode looks to whether specific instrumentalities and techniques have been developed by the inventor and known to him at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention.
The enablement requirement, thus, looks to the objective knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, while the best mode inquiry is a subjective, factual one, looking to the state of the mind of the inventor.Allen (Wood A. 2003)
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion, it can be seen that a number of different factors are involved in deciding whether or not an invention is obvious. The resolution of this issue plays a major role in determining whether a patent application will mature into a patent or whether a patent in suit will be found valid or invalid. Since pharmaceutical and biotech inventions can ring up many millions of dollars in sales per year, it is essential for a person involved in the patenting of those inventions to have a clear understanding of the issue of nonobviousnes
REFERENCES
1. Jeanne c. Fromer (2008) “The layers of obviousness in patent law” harvard journal of law & technology, volume 22,p.no.79-87.
2. Handbook on Patent Filing Procedures” Online Available at <patentwire.co.in>
3. Robert C. Faber(2004), “Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting (Faber) “fifth edition Published by David J. Stein, Esq. P. No. 2-10.
4. Nilesh Zacharias and Sandeep Farias (2002) “Patents and the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry” IP Rights/Patents Business Briefing: Pharma tech 2002 P. No. 47-48.
5. Allen Wood (2003) “Drafting Patent Claims for use in the United States in Mechanical and Electrical Cases” Published by Rabin & Berdo, P.C. Suite 500 1101 14th Street N.W. Washington.
6. Swarbrick James (2007) “Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology” Third Edition VOL. 1 PharmaceuTech, Inc. Pinehurst, North Carolinia, USA P.No. 2604-2615.
7. Patents Online available at bhateponkshe.com/patents.htm .
8. Non obviousness Online available at dougweller.com/novelty.html
9. The nonobviousness requirement available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness
NOW YOU CAN ALSO PUBLISH YOUR ARTICLE ONLINE.
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE/PROJECT AT articles@pharmatutor.org
Subscribe to Pharmatutor Alerts by Email
FIND OUT MORE ARTICLES AT OUR DATABASE
.png)
