Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
When determining whether a reference is in the “same field of endeavor” as the claimed invention, examiners should consider:
- Explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application
- The embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention
The MPEP states: “When determining whether the ‘relevant field of endeavor’ test is met, the examiner should consider ‘explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” (MPEP 2141.01(a))
Examiners must consider the disclosure of each reference “in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances’” and weigh these circumstances “from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2141.01 – Scope And Content Of The Prior Art (1)
When determining whether a reference is in the “same field of endeavor” as the claimed invention, examiners should consider:
- Explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application
- The embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention
The MPEP states: “When determining whether the ‘relevant field of endeavor’ test is met, the examiner should consider ‘explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” (MPEP 2141.01(a))
Examiners must consider the disclosure of each reference “in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances’” and weigh these circumstances “from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2141.01(A) – Analogous And Nonanalogous Art (1)
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
When determining whether a reference is in the “same field of endeavor” as the claimed invention, examiners should consider:
- Explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application
- The embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention
The MPEP states: “When determining whether the ‘relevant field of endeavor’ test is met, the examiner should consider ‘explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” (MPEP 2141.01(a))
Examiners must consider the disclosure of each reference “in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances’” and weigh these circumstances “from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.”
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
When determining whether a reference is in the “same field of endeavor” as the claimed invention, examiners should consider:
- Explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application
- The embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention
The MPEP states: “When determining whether the ‘relevant field of endeavor’ test is met, the examiner should consider ‘explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” (MPEP 2141.01(a))
Examiners must consider the disclosure of each reference “in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances’” and weigh these circumstances “from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.”
To learn more: