Ex interp what does it mean

Time Traveler for expansive The first known use of expansive was in See more words from the same year. Style: MLA. English Language Learners Definition of expansive. Medical Definition of expansive. Get Word of the Day daily email! Test Your Vocabulary. Can you spell these 10 commonly misspelled words? Love words? Need even more definitions?

Note that this definitely isn't your ping since this can be close to zero using a low update rate durring good conditions. Harrower Join Date: Member: Members. May CS doesn't seem to do the same thing, is it just because the models are moving slower or something? Drummer Join Date: Member: Members. May edited May Even if NS can't be fixed which to me would be a real shame, because I honestly think they really did a great job with the actual game design..

Is there any solid way to do it differently that anyone knows of, so that fast-moving players are tracked accurately? Movement code is very managable and almost compleatly fixed. On the assumption that Source is the same thing as creating a HL2:Deathmatch mod, that's what I was planning on. I don't care about choppiness I want to aim at what I see and hit it, not aim behind it or infront. Prediction obviously starts to break down the more complex it has to be. All online games use some form of prediction.

Unlike means-plus-function claim language that applies only to purely functional limitations, Phillips v. AWH Corp. For example, in In re Schreiber, the claims were directed to a conical spout the structure that "allow[ed] several kernels of popped popcorn to pass through at the same time" the function.

In re Schreiber, F. As noted by the court in Schreiber, "[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. A functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used.

A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Other examples of permissible function language include the following. It was held that the limitation used to define a radical on a chemical compound as "incapable of forming a dye with said oxidizing developing agent" although functional, was perfectly acceptable because it set definite boundaries on the patent protection sought.

In a claim that was directed to a kit of component parts capable of being assembled, the court held that limitations such as "members adapted to be positioned" and "portions. In re Venezia, F. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.

For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Wabash Appliance Corp. Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals.

See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc. Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.

In re Hyatt, F. For instance, a single means claim covering every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held to be invalid under 35 U. Hyatt, F. For more information regarding the written description requirement and enablement requirement under 35 U. Examiners should keep in mind that whether or not the functional limitation complies with 35 U.

For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel" was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the specification was functional, i. In another example, the claims directed to a tungsten filament for electric incandescent lamps were held invalid for including a limitation that recited "comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging or offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device.

The Court observed that the prior art filaments also "consisted of comparatively large crystals" but they were "subject to offsetting" or shifting, and the Court further found that the phrase "of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for a lamp or other device" did not adequately define the structural characteristics of the grains e.

Similarly, a claim was held invalid because it recited "sustantially sic pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior. In the latter example, the Court observed various problems with the limitation: "commercially uniform" meant only the degree of uniformity buyers desired; "comparatively small" did not add anything because no standard for comparison was given; and "spongy" and "porous" are synonyms that the Court found unhelpful in distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art.

In comparison, a claim limitation reciting "transparent to infrared rays" was held to be definite because the specification showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors. Swinehart, F. Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: 1 whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; 2 whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and 3 whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.

These factors are examples of points to be considered when determining whether language is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting. Other factors may be more relevant for particular arts. The primary inquiry is whether the language leaves room for ambiguity or whether the boundaries are clear and precise. During prosecution, applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a functional limitation in a number of ways.

For example: 1 "the ambiguity might be resolved by using a quantitative metric e. A claim which recites a list of alternatives to define a limitation is an acceptable claim construction which should not necessarily be rejected as confusing under 35 U. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used e.

Claims that set forth a list of alternatives from which a selection is to be made are typically referred to as Markush claims, after the appellant in Ex parte Markush, Dec.

The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i. Abbott Labs. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives e. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives such as "at least one member" selected from the group , or within the list of alternatives such as "or mixtures thereof".

A Markush grouping may include a large number of alternatives, and as a result a Markush claim may encompass a large number of alternative members or embodiments, but a claim is not necessarily indefinite under 35 U. In re Gardner, F. In certain circumstances, however, a Markush group may be so expansive that persons skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.

For example, if a claim defines a chemical compound using one or more Markush groups, and that claim encompasses a massive number of distinct alternative members, the claim may be indefinite under 35 U.

In such a circumstance, a rejection of the claim for indefiniteness under 35 U. The use of Markush claims of diminishing scope should not, in itself, be considered a sufficient basis for objection to or rejection of claims.

However, if such a practice renders the claims indefinite or if it results in undue multiplicity, an appropriate rejection should be made. Similarly, the double inclusion of an element by members of a Markush group is not, in itself, sufficient basis for objection to or rejection of claims. Rather, the facts in each case must be evaluated to determine whether or not the multiple inclusion of one or more elements in a claim renders that claim indefinite. The mere fact that a compound may be embraced by more than one member of a Markush group recited in the claim does not necessarily render the scope of the claim unclear.

For example, the Markush group, "selected from the group consisting of amino, halogen, nitro, chloro and alkyl" should be acceptable even though "halogen" is generic to "chloro. Teva Parenteral Meds. Another alternative format which requires some analysis before concluding whether or not the language is indefinite involves the use of the term "optionally.

In the instance where the list of potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises, then it is proper to make a rejection under 35 U. The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. So long as the boundaries of the patent protection sought are set forth definitely, albeit negatively, the claim complies with the requirements of 35 U. Some older cases were critical of negative limitations because they tended to define the invention in terms of what it was not, rather than pointing out the invention.

Thus, the court observed that the limitation "R is an alkenyl radical other than 2-butenyl and 2,4-pentadienyl" was a negative limitation that rendered the claim indefinite because it was an attempt to claim the invention by excluding what the inventors did not invent rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what they did invent.

In re Schechter, F. A claim which recited the limitation "said homopolymer being free from the proteins, soaps, resins, and sugars present in natural Hevea rubber" in order to exclude the characteristics of the prior art product, was considered definite because each recited limitation was definite. In re Wakefield, F. In addition, the court found that the negative limitation "incapable of forming a dye with said oxidized developing agent" was definite because the boundaries of the patent protection sought were clear.

Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, F. In describing alternative features, the applicant need not articulate advantages or disadvantages of each feature in order to later exclude the alternative features.

See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.

Note that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support.

Claims should be considered proper so long as they comply with the provisions of 35 U. A rejection on the basis of old combination was based on the principle applied in Lincoln Engineering Co.

Stewart-Warner Corp. The principle was that an inventor who made an improvement or contribution to but one element of a generally old combination, should not be able to obtain a patent on the entire combination including the new and improved element. A rejection required the citation of a single reference which broadly disclosed a combination of the claimed elements functionally cooperating in substantially the same manner to produce substantially the same results as that of the claimed combination.

The case of In re Hall, F. The court pointed out in In re Bernhart, F. A majority opinion of the Board of Appeals held that Congress removed the underlying rationale of Lincoln Engineering in the Patent Act, and thereby effectively legislated that decision out of existence. MTD Products, Inc.

Accordingly, a claim should not be rejected on the ground of old combination. A claim should not be rejected on the ground of "aggregation. Examiners should reject claims as prolix only when they contain such long recitations or unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite thereby. Claims are rejected as prolix when they contain long recitations that the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined. As noted by the court in In re Chandler, F.

The right of applicants to freedom of choice in selecting phraseology which truly points out and defines their inventions should not be abridged. Such latitude, however, should not be extended to sanction that degree of repetition and multiplicity which beclouds definition in a maze of confusion. The rule of reason should be practiced and applied on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances in each individual case.

Undue multiplicity rejections based on 35 U. If an undue multiplicity rejection under 35 U. The examiner should also request that applicant select a specified number of claims for purpose of examination. If applicant is willing to select, by telephone, the claims for examination, an undue multiplicity rejection on all the claims based on 35 U.

If applicant refuses to comply with the telephone request, an undue multiplicity rejection of all the claims based on 35 U. Also, it is possible to reject one claim over an allowed claim if they differ only by subject matter old in the art.

This ground of rejection is set forth in Ex parte Whitelaw, C. The Ex parte Whitelaw doctrine is restricted to cases where the claims are unduly multiplied or are substantial duplicates. There is no per se rule that "double inclusion" is improper in a claim.

In re Kelly, F. The governing consideration is not double inclusion, but rather is what is a reasonable construction of the language of the claims.

The facts in each case must be evaluated to determine whether or not the multiple inclusion of one or more elements in a claim gives rise to indefiniteness in that claim. The mere fact that a compound may be embraced by more than one member of a Markush group recited in the claim does not lead to any uncertainty as to the scope of that claim for either examination or infringement purposes.

On the other hand, where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. There are many situations where claims are permissively drafted to include a reference to more than one statutory class of invention. A product-by-process claim, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made, is proper.

Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, F. A claim to a device, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter may contain a reference to the process in which it is intended to be used without being objectionable under 35 U. An applicant may present claims of varying scope even if it is necessary to describe the claimed product in product-by-process terms.

A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U. In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data " was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs.

Katz, F. In contrast, when a claim recites a product and additional limitations which focus on the capabilities of the system, not the specific actions or functions performed by the user, the claim may be definite under 35 U.

During that time period, popular support for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself increased both in the United States and in other countries.

There was more support for restricting the slave trade initially than slavery itself in this time period. In the s, Congress passed statutes regulating the trade in slaves by U.

The United Kingdom and other countries also passed legislation restricting the slave trade, increasing international pressure on the United States to likewise curb the practice. In , the U. Congress passed a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves as of the first constitutionally-allowable moment of January 1, This act was signed by President Jefferson and entered into force in , rendering this part of the Constitution irrelevant except as a historical curiosity.

This in itself is a fascinating exception to constitutional change, in which a provision came with a built-in expiration date, after which the powers of the federal government would no longer be restricted. Note also that the Clause itself does not grant Congress the power to restrict the slave trade, but Congress presumably used the foreign and interstate commerce powers it had been given in Article 1, Section 8, to do so. In an important sense, there is a settled meaning of the Clause: it is no longer relevant in the same sense, for example, that the First Amendment is still constitutionally relevant.

But the Clause, although constitutionally inoperative for over years, still remains there for all to see and read. It is in the Constitution. And so the Clause, in a larger sense, has a continuing cultural and political constitutional relevance in the discourse of the morality and profitability of the international trade in human beings.

People rightfully wonder today, and earlier, why is such a Clause there in the first place and to whom does it refer? We do know the Framers are talking about the slave trade, right?

How attentive should we be to the specific language of the Clause or does the language actually inform us about what is trying to be conveyed? And why is this Clause the opening clause of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution?