最近看了一遍，其中有些单词或短语无法准确把握其含义，请高手解答。
\"Omnibus\" claim: This claim style simply specifies “a device substantially as shown and described,” or “any and all features of novelty prescribed, referred to, exemplified, or shown”
1: “Omnibus” claim：综合性权利要求；omnibus claims为多项权利要求？
2. specify：说明？列举？
An improved correlated set of iron-type golf-clubs” preamble was construed to use “correlated” as a claim limitation
3. correlated：相关的？
Precedent is split as to whether preambles limit the claims – the general rule is that the preamble is a limitation if it “breathes life and meaning into the claim” (MPEP §2111.02), and is not a limitation if it “simply states the intended use or purpose of the invention”
4. Precedent is split：先前判例有分歧？
An invention may be independently claimed with a number of general-purpose elements, but may be optimally used with specifics – this invention should be first claimed with a broad independent claim – rather than making one dependent claim string with each narrowing one element
5. be claimed：描述的？要求权利的？
6. element：构件？要素？特征？
7. specifies：细节？特征？
Festo in practice: The best way to avoid Festo is to never amend a claim, but this is often impossible – thus, practitioners face a dilemma: a broad claim would be very valuable if allowed, but may damage the scope of the patent if it must be amended; the current trend continues to favor broad claims
8. Festo in practice：实务？实践？
9. Practitioners：申请者？撰写者？从业者？
Preamble contextual breadth: The breadth of the context should match the breadth of the invention
10. contextual breadth：背景范围？
An “element” is a structural part of the apparatus – a “workpiece” or “article” is an item on which an apparatus works, and usually modifies, but is not a part of the actual apparatus.
11. Element：构件、部件？
12. Workpiece：工件？
13. Article：产品？物体？
14. Item：项？
Double inclusion of elements: This occurs when the same element is mentioned by two different names, and this always renders the claim indefinite
15. Double inclusion of elements：特征（构件？）的双重含义？
Antecedent basis: Every element should be introduced by an article, usually “a” or “an”, except when introduced as a plurality or as “means”
16. Antecedent basis：先行词的基础？
Alternative and hedged expressions: “Either” and “or” are permissible, unless they cause ambiguity of scope – “made entirely or in part of” and “iron, steel, or any other magnetic material” are both OK
17. hedged expressions：模糊的表达?
“Fingerprint claims”: Where an applicant has produced a new composition, but cannot explain the physical or chemical structure, the composition can be claimed according to some novel identifying traits, like X-ray diffraction patterns, solubility, and melting point
18. Fingerprint claims：？
19. produced a new composition：制造了一种新的合成物？
while no “magic words” are necessary, it is recommended to use the term “combination” in the preamble and “improvement” in the transitional clause in order to satisfy Rule 75(e)
20. magic words：？
A patentable combination might also have a patented component, sometimes called a “subcombination” – e.g., a compound that is a good insecticide might be claimed both on its own and in combination with other chemicals
21. Subconbination：子合成成分？
Duplicate claiming and undue multiplicity: MPEP §706.03(k): Rejection valid if two claims are “so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording”
Duplicate claiming and undue multiplicity：重复撰写和过度的多重使用？
22. The same thing：同样的东西？
an unreasonable number of claims may support a rejection of some claims as “undue multiplicity”; again, invoked in limited circumstances, and discouraged by the BPAI
23. invoked in limited circumstances：被限定的环境使用？
24. discouraged by the BPAI：被BPAI禁止？
Old combination and “overclaiming”: This rejection used to arise where an inventor developed a novel subcomponent in a larger apparatus, and the inventor claimed the entire apparatus as novel
25. Overclaiming：过度撰写？
if the invention has to engage other apparatus components, and has to reference these in the claim, they can be introduced in the preamble
26. engage：使用？
If fewer than all of the elements of the apparatus cooperate to achieve the result, then the invention is an “aggregation” – famous aggregation case: Reckendorfer v. Faber (1875): embedding an eraser on the end of a pencil rejected as an aggregation
27. Fewer than all of the elements of the apparatus：大多数设备部件？
28. Aggregation：组合？
allowed a patent claim to a kit of unassembled parts that could be assembled into a working invention
29. working invention：工作中的发明？
“Printed matter”: MPEP §706.03(a): “a mere arrangement of printed matter, though seemingly a ‘manufacture,’ is rejected as not being within the statutory classes”
30. Printed matter：印刷物？
31. Arrangement：构件？
32. Manufacture：产品？
33. statutory classes：法定类别？
in essence, printer matter should be included as a claim element where it renders the claimed invention operative
34. operative：运行？
vagueness may be created by lack of antecedent basis
35. create：产生？造成？
36. antecedent basis：先行基础？
Prolix rejections are proper for “very long detailed claims setting forth so many elements that invention cannot possibly reside in the combination”
37. invention cannot possibly reside in the combination：发明不可能存在于这种组合中？
An inventor cannot add “new matter” to the specification, drawings, or claims after the application has been filed
38. New matter：新材料？
Enablement for DNA and protein claims
39. Enablement：实施？
Many inventions can exist in the context of a monoclonal antibody
40. In the context of：在……情形中？
Patentability of therapeutic methods and compositions
41. Patentability of therapeutic methods and compositions：治疗方法和组成成分的可专利性（方法和成分如何并列的放在一起）？
no element that is necessary for the operation of the stripped-down invention should be eliminated
42. stripped-down invention：（什么意思）？
Revising the claims: delete dependent claims too focused on minute details; refactor dependent claims reciting a number of limitations into a set of smaller dependent claims
43. Too focused：修饰claims的分词focused，可以用too来修饰？
Alternative claim-drafting techniques: An apparatus can be claimed as a generic set of operative elements, each subsequently defined in more detail through dependent claims – alternatively, the invention can be described as a “catalog of parts,” and the practitioner can later select them for inclusion in a claim
44. catalog of parts：（什么意思）？
one generic independent claim can be mentioned, along with subgeneric claims
45. subgeneric claims：子类权利要求？
Honeywell problem with dependent claims: introduced the concept that when an independent claim is canceled during prosecution, and its dependent claim is rewritten in independent form to include all limitations from the independent claim, this counts as a narrowing claim amendment that creates a presumption of surrendered claim scope and bars the use of the doctrine of equivalents.
– this decision was foreshadowed by Ranbaxy
– however, this use is only barred for elements that were at issue in the rejection and cancellation of the parent claim; the doctrine may still be used for elements not at issue in the parent claim and not altered by the dependent claim
– this holding is odd because 35 USC §112 ¶4 imputes independent claim limitations into every dependent claim; thus, explicitly adding what is already implicitly part of the claim should not constitute “narrowing”
46. Parent claim：父权利要求（有这种说法）?
47. this holding is odd：这种观点和奇怪？ |
