Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states:
“The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was not in compliance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim.”
This case established that single means claims that are overly broad and not fully supported by the specification can be rejected under the enablement requirement.
To learn more:
The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v):
“In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.”
This case established that process claims should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of whether a disclosed apparatus would inherently perform the claimed steps. This ruling protects inventors from having their process claims unfairly rejected based solely on the functionality of a related machine or apparatus.
To learn more:
MPEP 2164.08(A) – Single Means Claim (1)
The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states:
“The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was not in compliance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim.”
This case established that single means claims that are overly broad and not fully supported by the specification can be rejected under the enablement requirement.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(V) – Mere Function Of Machine (1)
The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v):
“In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.”
This case established that process claims should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of whether a disclosed apparatus would inherently perform the claimed steps. This ruling protects inventors from having their process claims unfairly rejected based solely on the functionality of a related machine or apparatus.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states:
“The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was not in compliance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim.”
This case established that single means claims that are overly broad and not fully supported by the specification can be rejected under the enablement requirement.
To learn more:
The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v):
“In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.”
This case established that process claims should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of whether a disclosed apparatus would inherently perform the claimed steps. This ruling protects inventors from having their process claims unfairly rejected based solely on the functionality of a related machine or apparatus.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states:
“The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was not in compliance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim.”
This case established that single means claims that are overly broad and not fully supported by the specification can be rejected under the enablement requirement.
To learn more:
The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v):
“In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.”
This case established that process claims should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of whether a disclosed apparatus would inherently perform the claimed steps. This ruling protects inventors from having their process claims unfairly rejected based solely on the functionality of a related machine or apparatus.
To learn more: