What are the key differences between “use” claims and method claims in patent applications?
The key differences between “use” claims and method claims in patent applications are: “Use” claims typically state the use of a product without any active steps, while method claims outline specific steps or actions. “Use” claims are often considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), while properly constructed method claims are not. Method claims are generally…
Read MoreWhy are “Use” Claims often rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101?
“Use” claims are often rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they fail to fall within the statutory categories of patentable inventions. The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “‘Use’ claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101.” This is further supported by case law,…
Read MoreCan a “Use” claim be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b)?
Yes, a “Use” claim can be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both rejections. The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “It is appropriate to reject a claim that recites a use but fails to recite steps under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both…
Read MoreHow does U.S. patent law differ from other countries regarding inventorship?
The MPEP highlights a key difference between U.S. patent law and that of other countries regarding inventorship: “The requirement that the applicant for a patent in an application filed before September 16, 2012 be the inventor(s) (except as otherwise provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41), and that the inventor or each joint inventor be identified…
Read MoreWhat types of U.S. patent documents are considered prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), three types of U.S. patent documents are considered prior art as of their effective filing date if they name another inventor: U.S. patents U.S. patent application publications World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publications of international applications that designate the United States As stated in the MPEP: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)…
Read MoreWhat types of U.S. patent documents qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), the following U.S. patent documents qualify as prior art: U.S. patents U.S. patent application publications Certain World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publications of international applications (PCT applications) The MPEP states: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) sets forth three types of patent documents that can be applied as prior art as of…
Read MoreCan a U.S. patent document with common inventors still qualify as prior art?
Yes, a U.S. patent document can still qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) even if it has common inventors with the application under examination or patent under reexamination. MPEP 2154.01(c) states: “Even if there are one or more joint inventors in common in a U.S. patent document and the later-filed application under…
Read MoreWhat types of documents are considered “U.S. patent documents” under the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception?
According to the MPEP, “U.S. patent documents” under the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception include: U.S. patents U.S. patent application publications WIPO published applications The MPEP specifically states: This exception limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application…
Read MoreCan the best mode requirement be updated after the initial patent filing?
No, the best mode requirement cannot be updated after the initial patent filing. The MPEP 2165.01 clearly states: “There is no requirement to update in the context of a foreign priority application under 35 U.S.C. 119, Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A., 494 F.Supp. 370, 206 USPQ 676 (D.Del. 1980) (better catalyst developed between Italian…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of unsuccessful attempts to prepare a compound in prior art?
Unsuccessful attempts to prepare a compound disclosed in prior art can be significant in demonstrating that the prior art lacks an enabling disclosure. According to MPEP 2121.02: “When a prior art reference merely discloses the structure of the claimed compound, evidence showing that attempts to prepare that compound were unsuccessful before the relevant time will…
Read More