MPEP Section 806.04(b), Species May Be >Independent or< Related Inventions

Executive summary:

This document contains one section of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the "M.P.E.P."), Eighth Edition, Fifth Revision (August 2006). This page was last updated in July 2007. You may return to the section index to find a particular section. Alternatively, you may search the MPEP use the search box that appears on the bottom of every page of BitLaw--be sure to restrict your search to the MPEP in the pop-up list.

For more information on patent law, please see the Patent Section of BitLaw. For patent services, see the Beck & Tysver pages.

Previous Section (§806.04) | Next Section (§806.04(d))

806.04(b) Species May Be >Independent or< Related Inventions

Species **>may be either< independent **>or< related under the particular disclosure. >Where species under a claimed genus are not connected in any of design, operation, or effect under the disclosure, the species are independent inventions. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06.< Where inventions as disclosed and claimed are both (A) species under a claimed genus and (B) related, then the question of restriction must be determined by both the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to other types of restrictions such as those covered in MPEP § 806.05 - § *>806.05(j)<. If restriction is improper under either practice, it should not be required.

For example, two different subcombinations usable with each other may each be a species of some common generic invention. **>If so,< restriction practice under election of species and the practice applicable to restriction between combination and subcombinations >must be addressed<.

As a further example, species of carbon compounds may be related to each other as intermediate and final product. Thus, these species are not independent and in order to sustain a restriction requirement, distinctness must be shown. Distinctness is proven if >the intermediate and final products do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants and< it can be shown that the intermediate product is useful other than to make the final product. Otherwise, the disclosed relationship would preclude their being issued in separate patents. >See MPEP § 806.05(j) for restriction practice pertaining to related products, including intermediate-final product relationships.<