2100 Patentability

Submitted by (@mike001)

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
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Submitted by (@dlightner)

MPEP 608.02(a) - when are drawings and content thereof required

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 »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Add a consolidated subject-matter eligibility guidance appendix

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 »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

2100 Patentability

Submitted by (@justin.blaufeld)

§ 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
Active

2100 Patentability

Submitted by (@mspark)

2141.01(a) Analogous and Nonanalogous Art

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 »

Voting

2 votes
4 up votes
2 down votes
Active

2100 Patentability

Submitted by (@james.nigh)

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
Active

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

Submitted by (@dorange)

Impermissible shift - which claims are used for comparison?

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 »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

2100 Patentability

Submitted by (@dorange)

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

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1500 Design Patents

Submitted by (@thomas.mcbride)

1504.05 typo

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

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1200 Appeal

Submitted by (@rellinger)

Typo: 1202

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.

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active