Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
Notice regarding Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires all United States Federal Agencies with websites to make them accessible to individuals with disabilities. At this time, the MPEP [HTML] files below do not meet all standards for web accessibility. Until changes can be made to make them fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, the USPTO is providing access assistance via telephone. MPEP Interim Accessibility Contact: 703-305-8813.
III. MARKUSH PRACTICE - ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS UNDER THE PCT
III. MARKUSH PRACTICE
Example 18
- common structure:
Claim 1: A compound of the formula:
wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, pyridyl, thiazolyl, triazinyl, alkylthio, alkoxy, and methyl; R2-R4are methyl, benzyl, or phenyl. The compounds are useful as pharmaceuticals for the purpose of enhancing the capacity of the blood to absorb oxygen.
In this case the indolyl moiety is the significant structural element which is shared by all of the alternatives. Since all the claimed compounds are alleged to possess the same utility, unity is present.
Example 19
- common structure:
Claim 1: A compound of the formula:
wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, pyridyl, thiazolyl, triazinyl, alkylthio, alkoxy, and methyl; Z is selected from the group consisting of oxygen (O), sulfur (S), imino (NH), and methylene (-CH2-). The compounds are alleged to be useful as pharmaceuticals for relieving lower back pain.
In this particular case the iminothioether group -N=C-SCH3 linked to a six atom ring is the significant structural element which is shared by all the alternatives. Thus, since all the claimed compounds are alleged to possess the same use, unity would be present. A six membered heterocyclic ring would not have been of sufficient similarity to allow a Markush grouping exhibiting unity, absent some teaching of equivalence in the prior art.
Example 20
- common structure
Claim 1: A compound of the formula:
wherein R1 is methyl or phenyl, X and Z are selected from oxygen (O) and sulfur (S).
The compounds are useful as pharmaceuticals and contain the 1,3-thiazolyl substituent which provides greater penetrability of mammalian tissue which fact makes the compounds useful as relievers for headaches and as topical anti-inflammatory agents.
All compounds share a common chemical structure, the thiazole ring and the six atom heterocyclic compound bound to an imino group, which occupy a large portion of their structure. A six membered heterocyclic ring would not have been of sufficient similarity to allow a Markush grouping exhibiting unity, absent some teaching of equivalence in the prior art.
Example 21
- common structure:
All of the above copolymers have in common a thermal degradation resistance property, due to the reduced number of free COOH radicals by esterification with X of the end COOH radicals which cause thermal degradation. The chemical structures of the alternatives are considered to be technically closely interrelated to one another. A grouping in one claim is therefore allowed.
Example 22
- common structure:
The compound obtained by esterifying the end COOH radical of known polyhexamethyleneterephthalate with 
CH2O- has a thermal degradation resistant property, due to the reduced number of free COOH radicals which cause thermal degradation. In contrast, the compound obtained by esterifying the end COOH radical of known polyhexamethyleneterephthalate with a vinyl compound containing a CH2 = CH-
CH2O- moiety serves as a raw material for a setting resin when mixed with unsaturated monomer and cured (addition reaction).
All esters covered by the claim do not have a property or activity in common. For example, the product obtained through esterification with the "CH2= CH" vinyl compound does not have a thermal degradation resistant property. The grouping in a single application is not allowed.
Example 23
- No common structure:
Claim 1: A herbicidal composition consisting essentially of an effective amount of the mixture of A 2,4-D(2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) and B a second herbicide selected from the group consisting of copper sulfate, sodium chlorate, ammonium sulfamate, sodium trichloroacetate, dichloropropionic acid, 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid, diphenamid (an amide), ioxynil (nitrile), dinoseb (phenol), trifluralin (dinitroaniline), EPTC (thiocarbamate), and simazine (triazine) along with an inert carrier or diluent.
The different components under B must be members of a recognized class of compounds. Consequently in the present case a unity objection would be raised because the members of B are not recognized as a class of compounds, but, in fact, represent a plurality of classes which may be identified as follows:
a) inorganic salts: copper sulfate sodium chlorate ammonium sulfamate
b) organic salts and carboxylic acids: sodium trichloroacetate dichloropropionic acid 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid
c) amides: diphenamid
d) nitriles: ioxynil
e) phenols: dinoseb
f) amines: trifluralin
g) heterocyclic: simazine
Example 24
Claim 1: Catalyst for vapor phase oxidation of hydrocarbons, which consists of (X) or (X + a).
In this example (X) oxidizes RCH3 into RCH2OH and (X+a) oxidizes RCH3 further into RCOOH.
Both catalysts share a common component and a common activity as oxidation catalyst for RCH3. With (X+a) the oxidation is more complete and goes until the carboxylic acid is formed but the activity still remains the same.
A Markush grouping is acceptable.