Purposive Claim Construction and Computer-Implemented Inventions: a Detailed Analysis of CIPO’s New Guidelines
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Purposive Claim Construction and Computer-Implemented Inventions: a Detailed Analysis of CIPO’s New Guidelines
Issue: Volume 29 no 2
Author(s): Stephen Ferance
Abstract:
This article analyzes two Practice Notices released by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) on 8 March, 2013, concerning purposive claim construction and computer-implemented inventions, respectively (collectively, the “Guidelines”). The article discusses Canadian claim construction principles, and concludes that the Guidelines correctly abolish a number of controversial examination practices recently prohibited by Canadian Courts, including assessing patentability based on abstractions, such as the “substance”, “inventive concept”, “actual invention” or inventive “contribution”, and the proposition that “non-technological” inventions are excluded from patentability. However, the article also concludes that the Guidelines fail to adhere to Canadian claim construction principles governing identification of the “essential elements” of the claims. The Guidelines omit the presumption of essentiality and any consideration of the objective intent of the inventor that a particular element is essential irrespective of its practical effect. The Guidelines narrowly focus on a single solution to one problem, which will lead to erroneous conclusions as to whether a claim element has a material effect. The Guidelines also create a novel distinction between computer problems and non-computer problems. These deficiencies raise the risk that Examiners may continue to inappropriately disregard certain claim elements or limitations when assessing statutory subject-matter, resulting in improper rejections.
