(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Add back the precedential holding of Ex Parte Nehls to 2111.05 trending idea

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 trending idea

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
(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

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

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
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

". to ." for 2106 trending idea

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
(@kramerog) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Title to 2112.V is misleading trending idea

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
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Remove part of quotation from Chicago Rawhide trending idea

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
(@jasonliao) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2111.05: emphasize substrate relationship requirement for weight

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 »

Voting

-1 votes
0 up votes
1 down votes
(@patricia.leith) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2111.02 Effect of Preamble Needs Additional Explanations

It appears, in my experience, that there is confusion regarding this section of the MPEP and it would be very helpful to examiners if the MPEP would provide a more extensive discussion of preambles, intended uses and when statements in preambles actually limit the claimed Invention. Quite respectfully, the statement in the MPEP, upon citing In re Schriber, indicates 'If a prior art structure is capable of performing... more »

Voting

1 vote
2 up votes
1 down votes
(@patricia.leith) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2111.04 Whereby/Wherein clauses (inter alia)

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 »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@patricia.leith) kudos icon +

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
(@conrad) kudos icon +

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
(@chrisw) kudos icon +

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
(@mike001) kudos icon +

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
(@mike001) kudos icon +

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