Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (1)
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(S) – Reference To Figures Or Tables (1)
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
No, sequence listings or tables should not be duplicated in both the drawings and the specification of a patent application. The MPEP 608.02(d) clearly states:
If an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or under 35 U.S.C. 371 includes a sequence listing or a table, such a sequence listing or table should not be included in both the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification.
This requirement helps to avoid redundancy and potential inconsistencies between the drawings and the specification. Applicants should include sequence listings and tables in the appropriate sections of the specification only.
To learn more:
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
No, sequence listings or tables should not be duplicated in both the drawings and the specification of a patent application. The MPEP 608.02(d) clearly states:
If an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or under 35 U.S.C. 371 includes a sequence listing or a table, such a sequence listing or table should not be included in both the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification.
This requirement helps to avoid redundancy and potential inconsistencies between the drawings and the specification. Applicants should include sequence listings and tables in the appropriate sections of the specification only.
To learn more:
Referencing figures or tables in patent claims is generally discouraged, as claims should be complete in themselves. However, the MPEP 2173.05(s) states that it is permitted “only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.“
The MPEP emphasizes that this is a “necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” This means that referencing figures or tables should be a last resort when it’s impossible to describe the invention adequately using words alone.
To learn more: