The MPEP should more clearly spell out when drawings are actually necessary. In process inventions, it seems that drawings should not be required, but the text of MPEP 608.02 seems to be an open invitation to examiners to make unnecessary requirements. Moreover, what exactly does "admits of illustration by a drawing" mean? Is it not possible to articulate the statute in more clear language into the rule? 35 USC 113 is clearer than the rule (37 CFR 1.81), in that the statute only requires a drawing when "necessary" to understand the invention.
Voting on Ideas
Vote for your favorite ideas by clicking on the up arrow.To undo an upvote, simply click the arrow again. This second click removes your vote.