Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (3)
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
In re Casey is another significant case discussed in MPEP 2115 that relates to material worked upon in patent claims. The MPEP summarizes the case as follows:
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface.”
The court upheld an obviousness rejection, stating that “the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle.” This case reinforces the principle that the material worked upon (in this case, adhesive tape) does not necessarily impart patentability to an apparatus claim if it doesn’t result in a structural difference.
To learn more:
In re Young is another important case cited in MPEP 2115 that affects patent claim interpretation, particularly for apparatus claims. The MPEP states:
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
This case reinforces the principle that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not automatically confer patentability. Patent examiners and practitioners should focus on the structural elements of the claimed apparatus rather than the output it produces.
To learn more:
MPEP 2115 – Material Or Article Worked Upon By Apparatus (3)
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
In re Casey is another significant case discussed in MPEP 2115 that relates to material worked upon in patent claims. The MPEP summarizes the case as follows:
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface.”
The court upheld an obviousness rejection, stating that “the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle.” This case reinforces the principle that the material worked upon (in this case, adhesive tape) does not necessarily impart patentability to an apparatus claim if it doesn’t result in a structural difference.
To learn more:
In re Young is another important case cited in MPEP 2115 that affects patent claim interpretation, particularly for apparatus claims. The MPEP states:
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
This case reinforces the principle that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not automatically confer patentability. Patent examiners and practitioners should focus on the structural elements of the claimed apparatus rather than the output it produces.
To learn more:
Patent Law (3)
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
In re Casey is another significant case discussed in MPEP 2115 that relates to material worked upon in patent claims. The MPEP summarizes the case as follows:
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface.”
The court upheld an obviousness rejection, stating that “the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle.” This case reinforces the principle that the material worked upon (in this case, adhesive tape) does not necessarily impart patentability to an apparatus claim if it doesn’t result in a structural difference.
To learn more:
In re Young is another important case cited in MPEP 2115 that affects patent claim interpretation, particularly for apparatus claims. The MPEP states:
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
This case reinforces the principle that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not automatically confer patentability. Patent examiners and practitioners should focus on the structural elements of the claimed apparatus rather than the output it produces.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (3)
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
In re Casey is another significant case discussed in MPEP 2115 that relates to material worked upon in patent claims. The MPEP summarizes the case as follows:
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface.”
The court upheld an obviousness rejection, stating that “the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle.” This case reinforces the principle that the material worked upon (in this case, adhesive tape) does not necessarily impart patentability to an apparatus claim if it doesn’t result in a structural difference.
To learn more:
In re Young is another important case cited in MPEP 2115 that affects patent claim interpretation, particularly for apparatus claims. The MPEP states:
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
This case reinforces the principle that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not automatically confer patentability. Patent examiners and practitioners should focus on the structural elements of the claimed apparatus rather than the output it produces.
To learn more: