Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Amounts (3)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
And Proportions (3)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority (1)
Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:
- Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
- Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.
The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:
“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”
This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority Claims (1)
Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:
1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.
2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.
3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”
It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
MPEP 201 – Types of Applications (2)
Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:
1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.
2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.
3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”
It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:
- Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
- Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.
The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:
“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”
This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (7)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
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:
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
MPEP 2107 – Guidelines For Examination Of Applications For Compliance With The Utility Requirement (1)
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
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 2144.05 – Obviousness Of Similar And Overlapping Ranges (3)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
MPEP 2165.02 – Best Mode Requirement Compared To Enablement Requirement (2)
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
MPEP 2300 – Interference And Derivation Proceedings (1)
An interference in patent law is a proceeding to determine which party has the right to a patent when two or more parties claim the same invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 2300 covers interference and derivation proceedings.
According to MPEP 2304, “The suggestion for an interference may come from an applicant or from an examiner.” This process is crucial in determining priority of invention when multiple parties claim the same or similar inventions.
To learn more:
MPEP 2304 – Suggesting An Interference (1)
An interference in patent law is a proceeding to determine which party has the right to a patent when two or more parties claim the same invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 2300 covers interference and derivation proceedings.
According to MPEP 2304, “The suggestion for an interference may come from an applicant or from an examiner.” This process is crucial in determining priority of invention when multiple parties claim the same or similar inventions.
To learn more:
MPEP 500 – Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers (1)
Fraudulently establishing small entity status or paying fees as a small entity is considered a serious offense. According to 37 CFR 1.27(h): ‘Any attempt to fraudulently establish status as a small entity or pay fees as a small entity will be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office.’
The consequences of such actions can be severe, potentially including:
- Invalidation of the patent
- Criminal charges for fraud
- Disciplinary action against registered patent practitioners
It’s crucial to ensure that all claims to small entity status are truthful and accurate. Do not rely on oral advice from USPTO employees regarding entitlement to small entity status.
To learn more:
Patent Law (11)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:
1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.
2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.
3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”
It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:
- Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
- Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.
The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:
“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”
This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
Fraudulently establishing small entity status or paying fees as a small entity is considered a serious offense. According to 37 CFR 1.27(h): ‘Any attempt to fraudulently establish status as a small entity or pay fees as a small entity will be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office.’
The consequences of such actions can be severe, potentially including:
- Invalidation of the patent
- Criminal charges for fraud
- Disciplinary action against registered patent practitioners
It’s crucial to ensure that all claims to small entity status are truthful and accurate. Do not rely on oral advice from USPTO employees regarding entitlement to small entity status.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
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:
An interference in patent law is a proceeding to determine which party has the right to a patent when two or more parties claim the same invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 2300 covers interference and derivation proceedings.
According to MPEP 2304, “The suggestion for an interference may come from an applicant or from an examiner.” This process is crucial in determining priority of invention when multiple parties claim the same or similar inventions.
To learn more:
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (11)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:
1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.
2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.
3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”
It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:
- Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
- Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.
The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:
“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”
This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
Fraudulently establishing small entity status or paying fees as a small entity is considered a serious offense. According to 37 CFR 1.27(h): ‘Any attempt to fraudulently establish status as a small entity or pay fees as a small entity will be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office.’
The consequences of such actions can be severe, potentially including:
- Invalidation of the patent
- Criminal charges for fraud
- Disciplinary action against registered patent practitioners
It’s crucial to ensure that all claims to small entity status are truthful and accurate. Do not rely on oral advice from USPTO employees regarding entitlement to small entity status.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
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:
An interference in patent law is a proceeding to determine which party has the right to a patent when two or more parties claim the same invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 2300 covers interference and derivation proceedings.
According to MPEP 2304, “The suggestion for an interference may come from an applicant or from an examiner.” This process is crucial in determining priority of invention when multiple parties claim the same or similar inventions.
To learn more:
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more: