[Patentpractice] Species restriction

Richard Straussman rstraussman at weitzmanip.com
Tue Jun 10 14:03:57 UTC 2025


Thanks!

*Richard Straussman**
* *Senior Counsel*
* Registered Patent Attorney
* Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
*. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
*Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
*Intellectual Property Law*
425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401
Roseland, NJ 07068
*direct line* 973.403.9943
*main* 973.403.9940
*fax*973.403.9944
*e-mail*rstraussman at weitzmanip.com

*http://www.weitzmanip.com
*



On 6/10/2025 10:01 AM, David Boundy wrote:
> Yes, theoretically this is proper use of election of species (EoS is 
> common for Markush groups, for instance).
>
> The main constraint is "mutually exclusive."  So to change your hypo 
> slightly, "wherein the writing instrument produces a black line or has 
> a six-sided barrel" wouldn't be electable because those two aren't 
> mutually exclusive.
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 9:39 AM Richard Straussman via Patentpractice 
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>         Looking for some guidance.  Is it proper for an examiner to
>     issue a species restriction where all of the supposedly different
>     species are present in the same dependent claim (as opposed to
>     separate dependent claims)?
>
>         For example, if claim 1 recites a "writing implement" and
>     claim 2 says, "the system of claim 1, wherein the writing
>     implement is one of a pencil or a ball point pen"?    I am used to
>     the type of species restriction issued involving , for example,
>     claim 2 stating "the system of claim 1, wherein the writing
>     implement is a pencil" and claim 3 stating "the system of claim 1,
>     wherein the writing implement is a ball point pen."
>
>         NOTE:  I am not concerned with the propriety of such
>     restrictions or the arguments that can be made against them (thank
>     you David for your repeated guidance to the group on those
>     points), only the specific situation where the supposed different
>     species are all recited in the same claim.
>
>         Thanks in advance!
>
>             Rich
>
>     -- 
>     *Richard Straussman**
>     * *Senior Counsel*
>     * Registered Patent Attorney
>     * Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
>     *. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
>     *Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
>     *Intellectual Property Law*
>     425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401
>     Roseland, NJ 07068
>     *direct line* 973.403.9943
>     *main* 973.403.9940
>     *fax*973.403.9944
>     *e-mail*rstraussman at weitzmanip.com
>
>     *http://www.weitzmanip.com
>     *
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Patentpractice mailing list
>     Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>     http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/0679d496/attachment.html>


More information about the Patentpractice mailing list