Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
Patentability report practice ( MPEP § 705), has no effect upon, and does not modify in any way, the practice of restriction, being designed merely to facilitate the handling of cases in which restriction cannot properly be required.
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why the inventions as claimed are either independent or distinct; and (B) the reasons for insisting upon restriction therebetween as set forth in the following sections.
Where the inventions claimed are independent, i.e., where they are not connected in design, operation, or effect under the disclosure of the particular application under consideration ( MPEP § 806.04), the facts relied on for this conclusion are in essence the reasons for insisting upon restriction. This situation, except for species, is but rarely presented, since persons will seldom file an application containing disclosures of independent things.
Form paragraph 8.20.02 may be used when claims are directed to independent, unrelated inventions.
Inventions [1] and [2] are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different modes of operation, different functions, or different effects. ( MPEP § 806.04, MPEP § 808.01). In the instant case the different inventions [3].
1. This form paragraph is to be used only when claims are presented to unrelated inventions, e. g., a necktie and a locomotive bearing.
2. In bracket 3, insert reasons for concluding that the inventions are unrelated.
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents