Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27441574›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

The limited benefit of "product-by-process" claim.

Bao-Chi Chang, Shyh-Jen Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bao-Chi Changa Rehabilitation Center, Taipei Veterans General Hospital , Taipei , Taiwan.
Shyh-Jen Wangb Division of Experimental Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital , Taipei , Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A product-by-process claim was initially developed when the invention could not otherwise be adequately defined. In the US, a patent applicant can use a product-by-process claim for a new product, no matter whether the product can also be defined by using structure features. However, the applicant mainly bears the burden to establish the novelty between the claimed product and the prior art product. Moreover, in terms of infringement, the very recent CAFC cases indicate that the product must be made by a process recited in the claim to infringe a product-by-process claim. Thus, an assignee almost can not take advantage from product-by-process claims during the patent enforcement by comparing with process claims. From the points of the burden during patent prosecution and confined scope in determining infringement, the benefit of using a product-by-process claim would be very limited.

Indexed as

Patents as TopicBiological ProductsBiotechnologyHumansUnited StatesBiological Productsclaimdevelopmentinfringementpatentpatentabilityproduct-by-processviral

Identifiers

PMID27441574
PMCPMC5084995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.