The current text of MPEP 2111.05, if read quickly, seems to suggest that a "function" of "descriptive material" itself carries patentable weight. But this interpretation is not correct: A sheet of instructions as part of the kit claim in In re Ngai (cited in this section) was found to *not* have patentable weight. The "functional" nature of the particular instructions did not save the claims from anticipation over a... more »
As a suggestion, in relation to Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc, this section could be expanded, if deemed applicable, to include other words with a similar meaning to 'wherein' and 'whereby' which may also be interpreted as merely indicating the intended outcome of a positively-recited method step; e.g., 'thereby,' thereto,' 'therein.' It would also be very helpful, especially for new examiners, to... more »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
2165, I., p. 2100-279 (Nov. 2015), right column, cites Union Carbide v. Borg-Warner. The citation given is 550 F.2d 555. However, as far as I can tell, that is 550 F.2d *355* (three, not five). Would you please fix? Thank you!
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 »
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 »
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 »
At multiple instances throughout MPEP 2141 thru 2145, the case "In re Lintner" is misspelled as "In re Linter".
Two paragraphs above 2181(II)(C) is the phrase "the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph." I believe that the 'f' in 112(f) should be a 'b'.