MPEP Section 819, Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift

Executive summary:

This document contains Section 819 ("Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift ") of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the "M.P.E.P."), Eighth Edition, Eighth Revision (July 2010). This page was last updated in January 2011. You may return to the section index to find a particular section. Alternatively, you may search the MPEP using the search box that appears on the left side of every page of BitLaw--you may restrict your search to the MPEP on the search results page.

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

Previous Section (§818.03(d)) | Next Section (§821)

819 Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift [R-3]

The general policy of the Office is not to permit the applicant to shift to claiming another invention after an election is once made and action given on the elected subject matter. Note that the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). When claims are presented which the examiner holds are drawn to an invention other than the one elected, he or she should treat the claims as outlined in MPEP § 821.03.

Where a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)* is a continuation of its parent application and not a divisional, ** an express election made in the prior (parent) application in reply to a restriction requirement carries over to the CPA ** unless otherwise indicated by applicant. In no other type of continuing application *>does< an election carry over from the prior application. >See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Pharmachemie BV, 361 F.3d 1343, 1348, 70 USPQ2d 1097, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(An original restriction requirement in an earlier filed application does not carry over to claims of a continuation application in which the examiner does not reinstate or refer to the restriction requirement in the parent application.).

Where a genus claim is allowable, applicant may prosecute a reasonable number of additional species claims thereunder, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.141.

Where an interference is instituted prior to an applicant's election, the subject matter of the interference issues is not elected. An applicant may, after the termination of the interference, elect any one of the inventions claimed.<

**