Can a claim be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the description is not commensurate with the claim scope?

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based)BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).

Topics: First And Second Paragraphs MPEP 2100 - Patentability MPEP 2174 - Relationship Between The Requirements Of 35 U.S.C. 112(A) And (B) Or Pre - Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 Patent Law Patent Procedure
Tags: 35 U.S.C. 112(B), Claim Scope, Enablement, Patent Rejection, Written Description