Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
First And Second Paragraphs (1)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (4)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
MPEP 2121 – Prior Art; General Level Of Operability Required To Make A Prima Facie Case (1)
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2163.03 – Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises (1)
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
MPEP 2165.02 – Best Mode Requirement Compared To Enablement Requirement (1)
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
MPEP 2174 – Relationship Between The Requirements Of 35 U.S.C. 112(A) And (B) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (1)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
Patent Law (4)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (4)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more: