Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (3)
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:
The In re Ekenstam case establishes an important exception to the general rule regarding the availability of foreign patents as references. MPEP 2126.01 mentions this case:
“In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958).” (MPEP 2126.01)
This case recognized that when a patent is kept secret even after rights are formally awarded, its effective date as a reference may be delayed. This exception is crucial for understanding how secret or confidential patents are treated in prior art considerations, potentially affecting their use in patent examinations and validity challenges.
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 (2)
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 2126.01 – Date Of Availability Of A Patent As A Reference (1)
The In re Ekenstam case establishes an important exception to the general rule regarding the availability of foreign patents as references. MPEP 2126.01 mentions this case:
“In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958).” (MPEP 2126.01)
This case recognized that when a patent is kept secret even after rights are formally awarded, its effective date as a reference may be delayed. This exception is crucial for understanding how secret or confidential patents are treated in prior art considerations, potentially affecting their use in patent examinations and validity challenges.
To learn more:
Patent Law (3)
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:
The In re Ekenstam case establishes an important exception to the general rule regarding the availability of foreign patents as references. MPEP 2126.01 mentions this case:
“In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958).” (MPEP 2126.01)
This case recognized that when a patent is kept secret even after rights are formally awarded, its effective date as a reference may be delayed. This exception is crucial for understanding how secret or confidential patents are treated in prior art considerations, potentially affecting their use in patent examinations and validity challenges.
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)
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:
The In re Ekenstam case establishes an important exception to the general rule regarding the availability of foreign patents as references. MPEP 2126.01 mentions this case:
“In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958).” (MPEP 2126.01)
This case recognized that when a patent is kept secret even after rights are formally awarded, its effective date as a reference may be delayed. This exception is crucial for understanding how secret or confidential patents are treated in prior art considerations, potentially affecting their use in patent examinations and validity challenges.
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: