Abstract
The Author disputes the views expressed in the article by Göhring and Sibley in World Patent Information , Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5–10 (1989) on the excessive breadth of disclosure and claim in some chemical patents. He submits that it is the type of compound that is of primary importance to researchers in chemistry, not the total sum of individual compounds that fall under it. A broad claim is not necessarily unclear; it is clear if a skilled person can infer from it whether a specific compound falls within the claim. Furthermore, he argues, so long as unexamined applications are published, there are no ways of restricting a publication to the subject matter on which a patent is later granted.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
