MPEP § 2121.04 — Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art (Annotated Rules)
§2121.04 Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2121.04, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art
This section addresses Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art. Contains: 1 requirement.
Key Rules
Anticipation/Novelty
Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling to put the public in the possession of the article pictured. Therefore, such an enabling picture may be used to reject claims to the article. However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.”) (citing Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)). See also MPEP § 2125 for a discussion of drawings as prior art.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Anticipation/Novelty | MPEP § 2125 |
| Anticipation/Novelty | In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1931) |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2121.04 — Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art
Source: USPTO2121.04 Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art [R-10.2019]
PICTURES MAY CONSTITUTE AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE”Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling to put the public in the possession of the article pictured. Therefore, such an enabling picture may be used to reject claims to the article. However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.”) (citing Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)). See also MPEP § 2125 for a discussion of drawings as prior art.