Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(S) – Reference To Figures Or Tables (2)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more: