Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
First Paragraph (2)
The written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) mandates that the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
According to MPEP 2166, a rejection based on the written description requirement can be made using the following form paragraph:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.”
This rejection is used when the examiner believes that the specification does not provide adequate support for the claimed subject matter, including situations where new matter has been introduced into the claims.
To learn more:
A “single means” claim is a claim that attempts to cover every conceivable means for achieving a stated function while only disclosing at most those means known to the inventor. Such claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement.
MPEP 2166 provides a form paragraph for rejecting single means claims:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.”
This rejection is based on the principle that a single means claim, which purports to cover all possible ways of performing a function, is not enabled by the specification, which can only disclose a limited number of ways to perform the function.
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) mandates that the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
According to MPEP 2166, a rejection based on the written description requirement can be made using the following form paragraph:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.”
This rejection is used when the examiner believes that the specification does not provide adequate support for the claimed subject matter, including situations where new matter has been introduced into the claims.
To learn more:
A “single means” claim is a claim that attempts to cover every conceivable means for achieving a stated function while only disclosing at most those means known to the inventor. Such claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement.
MPEP 2166 provides a form paragraph for rejecting single means claims:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.”
This rejection is based on the principle that a single means claim, which purports to cover all possible ways of performing a function, is not enabled by the specification, which can only disclose a limited number of ways to perform the function.
To learn more:
MPEP 2166 – Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(A) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (2)
The written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) mandates that the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
According to MPEP 2166, a rejection based on the written description requirement can be made using the following form paragraph:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.”
This rejection is used when the examiner believes that the specification does not provide adequate support for the claimed subject matter, including situations where new matter has been introduced into the claims.
To learn more:
A “single means” claim is a claim that attempts to cover every conceivable means for achieving a stated function while only disclosing at most those means known to the inventor. Such claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement.
MPEP 2166 provides a form paragraph for rejecting single means claims:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.”
This rejection is based on the principle that a single means claim, which purports to cover all possible ways of performing a function, is not enabled by the specification, which can only disclose a limited number of ways to perform the function.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) mandates that the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
According to MPEP 2166, a rejection based on the written description requirement can be made using the following form paragraph:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.”
This rejection is used when the examiner believes that the specification does not provide adequate support for the claimed subject matter, including situations where new matter has been introduced into the claims.
To learn more:
A “single means” claim is a claim that attempts to cover every conceivable means for achieving a stated function while only disclosing at most those means known to the inventor. Such claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement.
MPEP 2166 provides a form paragraph for rejecting single means claims:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.”
This rejection is based on the principle that a single means claim, which purports to cover all possible ways of performing a function, is not enabled by the specification, which can only disclose a limited number of ways to perform the function.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) mandates that the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
According to MPEP 2166, a rejection based on the written description requirement can be made using the following form paragraph:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.”
This rejection is used when the examiner believes that the specification does not provide adequate support for the claimed subject matter, including situations where new matter has been introduced into the claims.
To learn more:
A “single means” claim is a claim that attempts to cover every conceivable means for achieving a stated function while only disclosing at most those means known to the inventor. Such claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement.
MPEP 2166 provides a form paragraph for rejecting single means claims:
“Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.”
This rejection is based on the principle that a single means claim, which purports to cover all possible ways of performing a function, is not enabled by the specification, which can only disclose a limited number of ways to perform the function.
To learn more: