What is the “same article” principle in MPEP 2112.01?

What is the “same article” principle in MPEP 2112.01? The “same article” principle is explained in MPEP 2112.01 as follows: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has…

Read More

How can an applicant rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims?

An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I): “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art…

Read More

What is the legal standard for establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product and apparatus claims?

According to MPEP 2112.01(I), a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established when: The claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or The claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes This principle is supported by the following quote from…

Read More

How does non-functional printed matter affect the patentability of product claims?

Non-functional printed matter does not distinguish a claimed product from an otherwise identical prior art product. This principle is explained in MPEP 2112.01(III): “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not…

Read More

How does the MPEP address chemical composition claims?

How does the MPEP address chemical composition claims? The MPEP addresses chemical composition claims in MPEP 2112.01, stating: “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” This principle is crucial for chemical composition claims. It means that if two products have the same chemical makeup, they must inherently possess the same properties.…

Read More

How does the USPTO treat ‘instruction limitations’ in method claims?

The USPTO extends the rationale from printed matter cases to method claims that include ‘instruction limitations’. According to MPEP 2112.01(III): “The court has extended the rationale in the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, to method claims in which ‘an instruction limitation’ (i.e., a limitation ‘informing’…

Read More

What is the significance of functional relationships between printed matter and the product in patent claims?

The functional relationship between printed matter and the product is crucial in determining the patentability of claims involving printed matter. According to MPEP 2112.01(III), the key question is: “[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86,…

Read More

What is the relationship between a chemical composition and its properties in patent law?

In patent law, a chemical composition and its properties are considered inseparable. This principle is outlined in MPEP 2112.01(II): “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The MPEP further explains: “A chemical composition and its properties are…

Read More