All elements test
Encyclopedia
The all elements rule or all limitations rule (often written with a hyphen after "all") is a legal test used in US patent law to determine whether a given reference anticipates
a patent claim. The rule is also applicable to an obviousness analysis. Under the rule, a single reference (for anticipation) or the combination of references relied upon (for obviousness) -- plus the ordinary knowledge of persons skilled in the art -- must explicitly or implicitly provide each and every claimed element.
The term elements generally refers to the parts of a device accused of infringement, while the term limitations refers to the defining properties of the claimed device or invention.
For example, consider this notional claim:
The elements of this claim include the handle, the head, the claw, and the face. The limitations include that there is a handle and it is wooden, it is longitudinally extended, its proximal end is adapted to be grasped by a human hand; that there is a head and it is iron; and that there is a claw part of the head and a face part of the head, and the claw is integral with the face.
Under the all-elements rule, the claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses each and every claimed element (or an equivalent of it). Under the more precise all-limitations rule now preferred in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, the claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses each and every claimed limitation (or an equivalent of it).
A corollary to the all-limitations rule is that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be employed in a manner that wholly vitiates or nullifies a claim limitation. Thus, a bronze hammer head might be found to be "equivalent" to the literally-claimed iron head, while a Styrofoam head would likely not be found equivalent; the issue is whether the new material (bronze or Styrofoam) differs "substantially" from the iron material literally recited in the claim. In deciding whether a material is substantially different from that literally recited in a patent claim, a court can use statements in the patent itself.
Novelty (patent)
Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application....
a patent claim. The rule is also applicable to an obviousness analysis. Under the rule, a single reference (for anticipation) or the combination of references relied upon (for obviousness) -- plus the ordinary knowledge of persons skilled in the art -- must explicitly or implicitly provide each and every claimed element.
The term elements generally refers to the parts of a device accused of infringement, while the term limitations refers to the defining properties of the claimed device or invention.
For example, consider this notional claim:
A tool for driving nails into a piece of wood, said tool comprising:
- a longitudinally extended wooden handle having a proximal end adapted to be grasped by a human hand and a distal end; and
- an iron head attached to said distal end of said handle, said head extending normal to said handle and having a first outer end and a second outer end, each said outer end distanced from said handle, said first outer end having a claw integral therewith and said second outer end having a flat distal face.
The elements of this claim include the handle, the head, the claw, and the face. The limitations include that there is a handle and it is wooden, it is longitudinally extended, its proximal end is adapted to be grasped by a human hand; that there is a head and it is iron; and that there is a claw part of the head and a face part of the head, and the claw is integral with the face.
Under the all-elements rule, the claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses each and every claimed element (or an equivalent of it). Under the more precise all-limitations rule now preferred in the United States Court of Appeals
United States court of appeals
The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system...
for the Federal Circuit, the claim is anticipated only if a single reference discloses each and every claimed limitation (or an equivalent of it).
A corollary to the all-limitations rule is that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be employed in a manner that wholly vitiates or nullifies a claim limitation. Thus, a bronze hammer head might be found to be "equivalent" to the literally-claimed iron head, while a Styrofoam head would likely not be found equivalent; the issue is whether the new material (bronze or Styrofoam) differs "substantially" from the iron material literally recited in the claim. In deciding whether a material is substantially different from that literally recited in a patent claim, a court can use statements in the patent itself.