2100 Patentability

Start a discussion about this section by clicking the Submit New Idea button on the left. You can read this section on the USPTO website.
(@chrisw)

2100 Patentability

2145 should also be broken up into subsections

Similar to Justin's idea* - 2145 would also be much easier to navigate if split. I suggest moving the text under Roman numeral XI just before the current Roman numeral I to form new 2145. I suggest changing Roman numerals I-X to 2145.01-2145.10 respectively.

Apologies if this is a duplicate - I can't find it mentioned through the Ideascale search or a targeted Google search.

* https://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com/a/dtd/%C2%A7-2181-should-be-broken-up-into-subsections/540832-9426... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld)

2100 Patentability

§ 2181 should be broken up into subsections

MPEP 2181 is very long and difficult to cite. At the very least, each roman numeral section should be converted into a constituent decimal section. For example:

2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation
2181.01 DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIM LIMITATION INVOKES 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, SIXTH PARAGRAPH
2181.02 DESCRIPTION NECESSARY TO SUPPORT... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@dorange)

2100 Patentability

Broadest reasonable interpretation of "adapted to"

As explained by MPEP 2111.04, the phrase "adapted to" is sometimes interpreted as the narrower "configured to" and other times as the broader "capable of." The MPEP directs "[t]he determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case," and cites In re Giannelli to show that the court determined the scope of "adapted to" by analyzing the written description.... more »

Voting

0 votes
2 up votes
2 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld)

2100 Patentability

Grammatical Error in 2111.05(III.)

The first sentence in the second paragraph of MPEP § 2111.05(III.) reads:
"However, where the claim as a whole is directed conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists."

The phrase "is directed conveying" is missing the word "to," as in, "the claim... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@chrisw)

2100 Patentability

What happened to 2116?

MPEP 2116 formerly* read:

The materials on which a process is carried out must
be accorded weight in determining the patentability
of a process. Ex parte Leonard, 187 USPQ 122 (Bd.
App. 1974).

I just today noticed that 2116 has gone. Why? The change summary** that removed it says "Section removed and reserved" but does not give an explanation. If it was removed for purely logistical reasons, would you please bring... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@james.nigh)

2100 Patentability

MPEP 2161.01 I paragraph 6 sentences need clarification

One of the sentences in this paragraph is very unclear and is leading to confusion as to what the standard for the written description and in particular possession actually is. Quoting from MPEP 2161.01 I paragraph 6 the sentence in question is the first sentence from the following two sentences:
Specifically, if one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@mike001)

2100 Patentability

Amend MPEP § 2164.04

I believe that MPEP § 2164.04 is internally inconsistent, not an accurate statement of the law, and confusing. Examiners routinely cite MPEP § 2164.04 for the proposition that they do not have to provide any actual reasoning when rejecting a claim under § 112(a) as lacking enablement. This is not an accurate statement of the law; therefore, I suggest deleting this section. Alternatively, this section could be amended... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@mike001)

2100 Patentability

Remove MPEP § 2172.01

MPEP § 2172.01 is routinely misapplied by examiners. Examiners appear to apply it in situations where the examiner thinks that what the applicant is claiming is too broad, but:
(i) the factual circumstances of the two main cited cases, In re Mayhew and In re Venezia, were quite narrow and never considered by the examiners; and
(ii) most rejections under § 2172.01 directly contravene § 2173.04 (breadth is not indefiniteness).... more »

Voting

2 votes
3 up votes
1 down votes
(@chrisw)

2100 Patentability

Expand 2145, IV. to explain "Keller," not just quote it.

MPEP 2145, IV (Nov. 2015), at 2100-194, quotes In re Keller without explanation. The Office should expand the discussion to explain to Examiners and Applicants the scope of applicability of Keller.

Keller says "[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references." 642 F.2d 413, 426. I have seen this quote interpreted to mean that any argument... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@conrad)

2100 Patentability

Inaccurate paraphrase of In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114(I)

Examiners often reference the decision of In re Schreiber, 1218 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) for the proposition that “claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function” because it is described this way in MPEP §2114(I). However, it appears that the Schreiber court itself never made such a statement. Rather, the court found that because the claimed invention... more »

Voting

3 votes
6 up votes
3 down votes
(@kramerog)

2100 Patentability

Title to 2112.V is misleading

The title is "ONCE A REFERENCE TEACHING PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS MADE THE BASIS OF A REJECTION, AND THE EXAMINER PRESENTS EVIDENCE OR REASONING TENDING TO SHOW INHERENCY, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN UNOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE."

This title is misleading because the rejection can also be overcome by rebutting the Examiner's evidence or logic for inherency. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
(@patricia.leith)

2100 Patentability

2164.01(c) In re Vaeck citation

The MPEP here states:

When a compound or composition claim is limited by a particular use, enablement of that claim should be evaluated based on that limitation.
See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claiming a chimeric gene capable of being expressed in any
cyanobacterium and thus defining the claimed gene by its use).

Quite respectfully, is it 'defining the claimed gene by... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes