LEGALDIGMLEGALDIGM
    ← Australia
    Beta
    IPA patent 5.5.4.10-relative-terms

    IPA patent 5.5.4.10-relative-terms — IP Australia Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure – 5.5.4.10 Relative terms

    Beta. Legal information, not legal advice. LEGALDIGM is not a law firm. Check the official source for the current text.

    Also in this Chapter: 5.5.4.1 The claims are construed as a legal document 5.5.4.2 Presumption against redundanc y 5.5.4.3 Omnibus claims 5.5.4.4 Swiss claims 5.5.4.5 Product by process claims 5.5.4.6 Parametric claims 5.5.4.7 ‘For use in’, ‘when used’, and similar wording in claims 5.5.4.8 ‘Comprises‘, ‘includes‘, ‘consists of‘, and ‘contains‘ in claims 5.5.4.9 Reference numerals in claims 5.5.4.11 ‘Substantially‘, ‘about‘, and ‘generally’ 5.5.4.12 Appended claims Key Legislation: ​​​​​​​ Patents Act: s7 Novelty, inventive step and innovative step s7A Meaning of useful s18 Patentable inventions s40 Specifications s41 Specifications: micro-organisms Related Chapters: ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​ 5.5.3 Rules of Construction 5.5.4.11 'Substantially', 'about '​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​ 5.6.4 Citations: Prior art base and construction of prior art 5.6.5 Novelty, Whole of Contents, and Secret Use 5.6.6 Inventive Step 5.6.7 Full Disclosure, Sufficiency, Clarity, Support and Usefulness (s40) 5.6.7.1 Claims are Clear and Succinct ; 5.6.7.3 Support for the Claims 5.6.8 Patent Eligible Subject Matter (Manner of Manufacture) Use of Relative Terms Relative terms are expressions (such as ‘relatively’ and ‘substantially’), defining features relative to one or more other features. Relative terms may be used in a patent specification in an appropriate context, provided they convey the necessary meaning. Case examples are: ‘relatively small’ ( Leonardis v Sartas (1996) 449 FCA 1; Populin v H B Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 at page 473); ‘a minor amount of water ... small in comparison with the total amount of other liquid constituents’ ( Imperial Chemical Industries Limited (Clark’s) Application [1969] RPC 574 at pages 583 and 584); ‘substantially dropwise’ flow ( Vax Appliances Limited v Hoover plc ( 1991) FSR 307 at pages 309 and 318); and ‘substantial effect’ ( Monsanto Company v Commissioner of Patents (1974) 48 ALJR 59 ).

    Related guides, FAQ and contract templates