Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
According to MPEP 2113, the evaluation of product-by-process claims focuses on the final product, not the process of making it. The MPEP states:
“If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
This means that examiners will compare the claimed product to prior art products, regardless of how those products were made. If the claimed product appears to be the same or obvious in light of a prior art product, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) or 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness).
To learn more:
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
MPEP 2113 – Product – By – Process Claims (1)
According to MPEP 2113, the evaluation of product-by-process claims focuses on the final product, not the process of making it. The MPEP states:
“If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
This means that examiners will compare the claimed product to prior art products, regardless of how those products were made. If the claimed product appears to be the same or obvious in light of a prior art product, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) or 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness).
To learn more:
MPEP 2115 – Material Or Article Worked Upon By Apparatus (1)
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
According to MPEP 2113, the evaluation of product-by-process claims focuses on the final product, not the process of making it. The MPEP states:
“If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
This means that examiners will compare the claimed product to prior art products, regardless of how those products were made. If the claimed product appears to be the same or obvious in light of a prior art product, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) or 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness).
To learn more:
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
According to MPEP 2113, the evaluation of product-by-process claims focuses on the final product, not the process of making it. The MPEP states:
“If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
This means that examiners will compare the claimed product to prior art products, regardless of how those products were made. If the claimed product appears to be the same or obvious in light of a prior art product, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) or 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness).
To learn more:
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young.
The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes.
To learn more: