Jump to content

All elements test

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UnCatBot (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 27 March 2009 ((Bot) tagging, added uncategorised tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The all elements rule or all limitations rule (often written with a hyphen after "all") is a legal test used in US patent law to determine whether a given reference anticipates a patent claim.[1] The rule is also applicable to an obviousness analysis.[2] Under the rule, a single reference (for anticipation) or the combination of references relied upon (for obviousness) -- plus the ordinary knowledge of persons skilled in the art -- must explicitly or implicitly provide each and every claimed element.

The term elements refers to the parts of a claimed device, while the term limitations refers to the defining properties of a claimed device.[3]

For example, consider this notional claim:

A tool for driving nails into a piece of wood, said tool comprising:

a longitudinally extended wooden handle having a proximal end adapted to be grasped by a human hand and a distal end; and

an iron head attached to said distal end of said handle, said head extending normal to said handle and having a first outer end and a second outer end, each said outer end distanced from said handle, said first outer end having a claw integral therewith and said second outer end having a flat distal face.

The elements of this claim include the handle, the head, the claw, and the face. The limitations include that the handle is wooden, that it is longitudinally extended, that the proximal end is adapted to be grasped by a human hand, that the head is iron, and that the claw is integral with the face.

Under the all-elements rule, the claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses each and every claimed element (or an equivalent of it). Under the more precise all-limitations rule now preferred in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses each and every claimed limitation (or an equivalent of it).[4]

A corollary to the all-limitations rule is that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be employed in a manner that wholly vitiates or nullifies a claim limitation.[5] Thus, a hammer with a bronze head could not infringe the notional claim under the doctrine of equivalents.[6]

References

  1. ^ In order to demonstrate anticipation, the proponent must show “that the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, the reference must also disclose those elements “arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
  2. ^ See Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 727 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that for claimed subject matter to be obvious either the prior art references must expressly reach each claim limitation exactly or else the record must disclose a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art teachings to obtain the claimed invention).
  3. ^ "[T]his court has moved towards the custom of referring to claim 'limitations,' reserving the word 'elements' for describing the parts of the accused device, though the court on occasion continues to use the words interchangeably." Dawn Equip. Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1015 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
  4. ^ See, e.g., Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
  5. ^ See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29-30 (1997); Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996).
  6. ^ "Thus, if a patent states that the claimed device must be 'nonmetallic,' the patentee cannot assert the patent against a metallic device on the ground that a metallic device is equivalent to a non-metallic device. The unavailability of the doctrine of equivalents could be explained either as the product of an impermissible vitiation of the 'non-metallic' claim limitation, or as the product of a clear and binding statement to the public that metallic structures are excluded from the protection of the patent." Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_elements_test&oldid=279946588"