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 »
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 ...more »
The eligibility pages at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility and https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility-examination-guidance-date are very helpful. However, as the number of documents grows, the tedium of citing them weighs more and more heavily. Would the editors please consider including a regularly-updated ...more »
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 »
Why is the following quote from KSR included in this section about analogous art?: “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent [or application at issue] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. ” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). The 'problem' being ...more »
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 »
MPEP 818.02(a) says that in making a determination of whether election by original presentation has occurred, the present claimed should be compared to the "original claims." But this section directs the examiner to 821.03, which in turn cites 37 CFR 1.145, both of which say "previously claimed" instead of "original claims." A distinction can arise because application may have more than one set of amendments (i.e., ...more »
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 »
Could the sentence saying that serious burden on the examiner be corrected back to what it said in the previous version (there is clearly said it's inapplicable). Now the language where this is first discussed appeared to be missing something
Immediately following the Title of section 602.01(c)(1) in the Editor Note, it seems that "applications" must be changed to --requests--.
Section 809.02(a) seems to have been left behind in the current version. If this was deliberate, an entry should be included in the Blue Pages.
The downloadable PDF version of Chapter 1200 includes a typo in section 1202:
decisions mailed prior to September 16, 2102 should continue to be cited as decisions of the BPAI or its predecessor organizations
Presumably, 2102 should read 2012.