Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
Conception and reduction to practice are two distinct steps in the inventive process. According to MPEP 2138.04, conception is the mental part of the inventive act, while reduction to practice involves actually creating or performing the invention.
The MPEP states:
“Conception has been defined as ‘the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act’ and it is ‘the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice….’”
Reduction to practice, on the other hand, can be either actual (physically creating the invention) or constructive (filing a patent application with a sufficient description). In most cases, conception occurs before reduction to practice. However, the MPEP notes that in some unpredictable fields, such as chemistry and biology, conception and reduction to practice may occur simultaneously:
“On rare occasions conception and reduction to practice occur simultaneously in unpredictable technologies.”
Understanding this distinction is crucial for determining inventorship and priority dates in patent law.
To learn more:
MPEP 2109 – Inventorship (1)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
MPEP 2138.04 – "Conception" (1)
Conception and reduction to practice are two distinct steps in the inventive process. According to MPEP 2138.04, conception is the mental part of the inventive act, while reduction to practice involves actually creating or performing the invention.
The MPEP states:
“Conception has been defined as ‘the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act’ and it is ‘the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice….’”
Reduction to practice, on the other hand, can be either actual (physically creating the invention) or constructive (filing a patent application with a sufficient description). In most cases, conception occurs before reduction to practice. However, the MPEP notes that in some unpredictable fields, such as chemistry and biology, conception and reduction to practice may occur simultaneously:
“On rare occasions conception and reduction to practice occur simultaneously in unpredictable technologies.”
Understanding this distinction is crucial for determining inventorship and priority dates in patent law.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
Conception and reduction to practice are two distinct steps in the inventive process. According to MPEP 2138.04, conception is the mental part of the inventive act, while reduction to practice involves actually creating or performing the invention.
The MPEP states:
“Conception has been defined as ‘the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act’ and it is ‘the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice….’”
Reduction to practice, on the other hand, can be either actual (physically creating the invention) or constructive (filing a patent application with a sufficient description). In most cases, conception occurs before reduction to practice. However, the MPEP notes that in some unpredictable fields, such as chemistry and biology, conception and reduction to practice may occur simultaneously:
“On rare occasions conception and reduction to practice occur simultaneously in unpredictable technologies.”
Understanding this distinction is crucial for determining inventorship and priority dates in patent law.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
Conception and reduction to practice are two distinct steps in the inventive process. According to MPEP 2138.04, conception is the mental part of the inventive act, while reduction to practice involves actually creating or performing the invention.
The MPEP states:
“Conception has been defined as ‘the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act’ and it is ‘the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice….’”
Reduction to practice, on the other hand, can be either actual (physically creating the invention) or constructive (filing a patent application with a sufficient description). In most cases, conception occurs before reduction to practice. However, the MPEP notes that in some unpredictable fields, such as chemistry and biology, conception and reduction to practice may occur simultaneously:
“On rare occasions conception and reduction to practice occur simultaneously in unpredictable technologies.”
Understanding this distinction is crucial for determining inventorship and priority dates in patent law.
To learn more: