(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Incomplete citation to Symantec in 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(A.)

MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(A.) introduces the full citation for Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., which is then relied upon for the pincite for the rest of the MPEP.

However, the first full citation to this case is missing its identification of the Federal Circuit in the last part of the citation. It just provides the year of the decision, which is the form that is usually reserved for when it is otherwise... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Add back the precedential holding of Ex Parte Nehls to 2111.05

The June 2020 revision of the MPEP deleted the following sentence: "USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter."

You need to add it back for two reasons.

First, the MPEP is supposed to reflect Office policy, and it is established Office policy that USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter. Specifically, this policy is established by the precedential holding of Ex parte... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Grammatical error in 2111.05

The second sentence of 2111.05 reads "Since a claim must be read as a whole, USPTO personnel may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter."

 

The word "comprised" is synonymous with "included" or "contained." It does not make sense to refer to claim limitations "comprised of" printed matter, because it does not make sense to refer to claim limitations being "included of" printed matter or "contained... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Remove reference to Autogiro in MPEP 2163

MPEP 2163 is about the Written Description requirement. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) cited Autogiro as support for the following quote:
"An applicant may show possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole... Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697,... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@mspark) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2141.01(a) Analogous and Nonanalogous Art: KSR is NOT applicable

2141.01(a)(I) need to be completely re-written! This section correctly cites In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, everything following that citation that references KSR is nonsense! The 'problem' described in KSR was in relation for reasoning associated with combining the teachings of references. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with deciding whether a reference is analogous... more »

Voting

1 vote
2 up votes
1 down votes
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Remove part of quotation from Chicago Rawhide

MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) cites Chicago Rawhide, 223 USPQ 351 (Bd. Pat App. & Inter. 1984) for both "[t]he mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness" and "[t]he prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of the appellant's specification,... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2111.03 fixing the grammar/semantics of the word "unrecited"

MPEP § 2111.03 explains how different transitional phrases in a claim affect claim scope with respect to what "unrecited" additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. I proposed replacing all instances of the word "unrecited" with the word "non-recited."

This word, "unrecited," does not accurately describe the concept. When the "un-" prefix is paired with a verb, it typically causes... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@bricoyle) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Safety and Efficacy Considerations - evidence clarification

Medical products have been given some leeway by the USPTO, in terms of product safety. Their safety is regulated by another government division, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical product makers do not want to "publicize" inventions prior to patenting. If USPTO demanded FDA approval, that would allow other companies to copy the invention while it was being tested for the FDA. It makes more sense to patent... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@ryanpoolrp) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

How to Rebut a 102/103 rejection based on Inherency

MPEP § 2112 which address the Inherency Doctrine, makes clear that once a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to applicants to show that the claimed property is not inherent. However, this section of the MPEP (and the MPEP as a whole) fails to articulate how applicants can satisfy this burden. Because of this lack of guidance, Examiners commonly mistakenly apply the unexpected results standard... more »

Voting

3 votes
4 up votes
1 down votes
(@dorange) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Clarification of number of species to support a broad genus

MPEP 2163.03(V) states "An original claim may lack written description support when ... (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)."

Here, the use of the singular in "a narrow species" could suggest that this rejection is only allowed... more »

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes
(@chrisw) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2106.04 (1/2018): Enfish "character as a whole" missing

MPEP 2106.04 (Jan. 2018) (at 2100-21, right column) quotes the original 2014 Guidance (79 FR 74618, 74622) that “A claim is directed to a judicial exception when ... an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.” However, the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision specifically found that the “‘directed to’ inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the claims *involve* a patent-ineligible concept.”... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

". to ." for 2106

Eighteen portions of the newly-edited 2106 place periods outside of quotes. This is still not generally accepted in American grammar, and is inconsistent with the section as a whole (eighty-four instances of periods within the quoted text).

 

There are also twenty-five great number of commas outside of quotes (as opposed to thirty-two within).

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Another outline level in 2106.05(I)(A)

Add a "1," before "Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: "

Add a "2." before "Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:"



If discussing Alice step B, in order to cite the MPEP for any particular class of limitation,... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@james.nigh) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

MPEP 2106.05

I believe this section could be improved if there were more subheading designations within the section. For example under section A (Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount to An Inventive Concept) there are two separate lists (Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" and Limitations that the courts have found not be enough to qualify as "significantly... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@chrisw) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2106.03, I: clarify Nuijten paragraph "tangible" explanation

Please see MPEP 2106.03, I. (Jan. 2018), at 18, right column. The second non-bulleted paragraph (“paragraph A”) begins: “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category” (at 2100-19). Since paragraph A solely relates to Nuijten,* I suggest revising paragraph A to expressly relate to signals, and to clarify the meaning of “tangible.” For example, I propose revising paragraph... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes