Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
The “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine is a legal principle in patent law that relates to the obviousness of an invention. It states that selecting a known material or component for its recognized suitability for an intended use can support a prima facie case of obviousness.
As stated in MPEP 2144.07:
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” in the landmark case of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
This doctrine suggests that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a material or component as suitable for a particular purpose, using that material or component for that purpose may be considered obvious and thus potentially unpatentable.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 – Apparatus And Article Claims — Functional Language (1)
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
MPEP 2144.07 – Art Recognized Suitability For An Intended Purpose (1)
The “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine is a legal principle in patent law that relates to the obviousness of an invention. It states that selecting a known material or component for its recognized suitability for an intended use can support a prima facie case of obviousness.
As stated in MPEP 2144.07:
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” in the landmark case of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
This doctrine suggests that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a material or component as suitable for a particular purpose, using that material or component for that purpose may be considered obvious and thus potentially unpatentable.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
The “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine is a legal principle in patent law that relates to the obviousness of an invention. It states that selecting a known material or component for its recognized suitability for an intended use can support a prima facie case of obviousness.
As stated in MPEP 2144.07:
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” in the landmark case of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
This doctrine suggests that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a material or component as suitable for a particular purpose, using that material or component for that purpose may be considered obvious and thus potentially unpatentable.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
The “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine is a legal principle in patent law that relates to the obviousness of an invention. It states that selecting a known material or component for its recognized suitability for an intended use can support a prima facie case of obviousness.
As stated in MPEP 2144.07:
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” in the landmark case of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
This doctrine suggests that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a material or component as suitable for a particular purpose, using that material or component for that purpose may be considered obvious and thus potentially unpatentable.
To learn more: