2

Do disparaged embodiments lack claim support? Probably. I will preface this by saying that, much to my frustration, I could not find a case on all-fours with what you are proposing. It could well a novel situation1. But there are two well-established principles that are related: claims are interpreted to exclude disparaged subject matter, and claims ...


2

In the US case, I would also like to add that reverse doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may apply as implicit claim scope limitation. Reverse DOE essentially says literally infringing structure may not infringe if it does not satisfy all of the traditional function-way-result requirements. E.g., see the wikipedia article. This would apply to the previous ...


2

Are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified? Yes. The written description requirements in the US and EPO require that the invention must be enabled or sufficient described (respectively) across the whole of its scope. The USPTO sets this out reasonably clearly at MPEP § 2164.02: For a claimed genus, ...


1

Here is an excerpt from USPTO example. The cross-outs didn't come over in my cut and paste so do look at the link. Amendments to the Specification: Please replace paragraph [0021] with the following amended paragraph: [0021] In the construction of the bucket of this invention, various materials have been selected [[and]] which offer a number of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible