Will this simple claim cover 36 embodiments?

I claim:

1. A device, comprising:

   a. a thingamabob comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of:

      a foo;
      a bar; and
      a baz;

   b. a whoozit comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of:

      a fizz;
      a buzz; and
      a bang;

   c. [connections between the above and also non-obviousness and usefulness declarations].

Counting the possible permutations becomes:

3(Permute)3 x 3(Permute)3
= 6 x 6
= 36

Some quotes from MPEP:

... purely mechanical features or process steps may also be claimed by using the Markush style of claiming.


A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use.


Members of a Markush group share a "single structural similarity" when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class.

Assume this is true in the above example.

Update after a comment from George White: More rules from the MPEP on the gamble:

If on examination the elected species is found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, the Markush claim and claims to the elected species will be rejected, and claims to the nonelected species will be held withdrawn from further consideration.


If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush claim shall be rejected.

  • The format you are using makes it hard to read. And you know that if 36 cases are covered they each need to be patentable and if prior art is later uncovered for one of the 36, the entire claim becomes invalid.
    – George White
    Oct 10, 2022 at 0:08
  • "Markush claims ... recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language."
    – Drakes
    Oct 10, 2022 at 1:13
  • I meant the text box format.
    – George White
    Oct 10, 2022 at 7:57


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .