Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Amounts (1)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
And Proportions (1)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (14)
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106 – Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (1)
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.04(A) – Abstract Ideas (1)
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05 – Eligibility Step 2B: Whether A Claim Amounts To Significantly More (1)
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05(B) – Particular Machine (1)
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2111.03 – Transitional Phrases (1)
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
MPEP 2112 – Requirements Of Rejection Based On Inherency; Burden Of Proof (1)
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 – Apparatus And Article Claims — Functional Language (2)
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
MPEP 2136.02 – Content Of The Prior Art Available Against The Claims (1)
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2138.04 – "Conception" (1)
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness Of Similar And Overlapping Ranges (1)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
MPEP 2154.01(B) – Determining When Subject Matter Was Effectively Filed Under Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(D) (1)
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
MPEP 2165.02 – Best Mode Requirement Compared To Enablement Requirement (1)
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(H) – Alternative Limitations (1)
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
Patent Law (14)
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (14)
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more: