In patent claims, how must apparatus claims be distinguished from prior art?

Apparatus claims must be distinguished from prior art primarily through their structural differences. In patent law, apparatus claims define a physical entity or machine that is characterized by its specific structure, components, and arrangement of parts. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must demonstrate novelty by presenting a new and non-obvious arrangement of elements compared to what is already known in the prior art.

The structural differences provide a clear basis for distinguishing the claimed invention from existing devices or apparatuses, allowing examiners to assess whether the claimed invention meets the criteria for patentability. Understanding the specific structures involved helps to establish what makes the invention unique and advances the state of the art, which is essential for the granting of a patent.

While considerations like intended use and component materials may contribute to the overall context or functionality of the claimed invention, they do not, by themselves, serve as the primary means of distinguishing patentable apparatus claims from prior art. Marketability is also an aspect that is more relevant to commercial viability and does not pertain directly to the patent's technical differences. Thus, focusing on structural differences is fundamental in the patent examination process for apparatus claims.