What is the status of unpublished U.S. applications as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)?
Unpublished U.S. applications can serve as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in certain circumstances. According to the MPEP, If an earlier filed, copending, and unpublished U.S. patent application discloses subject matter which would anticipate the claims in a later filed pending U.S. application which has a different inventive entity, the examiner should determine…
Read MoreCan a thesis in a university library be considered prior art?
Yes, a thesis in a university library can be considered prior art if it is sufficiently accessible to the public. According to MPEP 2128.01: “A doctoral thesis indexed and shelved in a library is sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute prior art as a ‘printed publication.’” This principle was established in the case of…
Read MoreWhat are examples of universal facts that can be shown by non-prior art references?
Non-prior art references can be used to show universal facts in patent examination. The MPEP 2124 provides several examples of such universal facts: Characteristics and properties of a material Scientific truisms Whether undue experimentation would have been required at the filing date Whether a parameter was critical or not The accuracy of statements in the…
Read MoreWhat are “universal facts” in the context of MPEP 2124?
What are “universal facts” in the context of MPEP 2124? In the context of MPEP 2124, “universal facts” refer to information that is generally known or widely accepted in the field of the invention. These facts are considered to be so fundamental that they don’t require prior art status to be used in patent examination.…
Read MoreDo unintended features in patent drawings count as prior art?
Yes, unintended features shown in patent drawings can count as prior art. The MPEP 2125 clearly states: “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary…
Read MoreHow do unexplained features in patent drawings affect prior art rejections?
How do unexplained features in patent drawings affect prior art rejections? Unexplained features in patent drawings can still be used as a basis for prior art rejections. According to MPEP 2125: “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25…
Read MoreWhat is undue multiplicity in patent claims?
Undue multiplicity in patent claims refers to an unreasonable number of repetitious and multiplied claims that confuse rather than clarify the invention. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(n): “Where, in view of the nature and scope of applicant’s invention, applicant presents an unreasonable number of claims which are repetitious and multiplied, the net result of which…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of “undue experimentation” in plant genetics prior art?
In plant genetics prior art, “undue experimentation” plays a crucial role in determining whether a disclosure is enabling. According to MPEP 2121.03, “A reference containing a detailed description of a particular variety of plant and the method of obtaining it would be enabling, whereas a mere recitation of a plant’s name or characteristics would not.”…
Read MoreWhat is considered “undue experimentation” in patent law?
“Undue experimentation” in patent law refers to the excessive or unreasonable amount of experimentation required for a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention based on the disclosure in the patent application. This concept is crucial in determining whether an application meets the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of “undue experimentation” in patent enablement?
“Undue experimentation” is a critical concept in patent enablement. It refers to the level of experimentation required for a person skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention. The MPEP states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how…
Read More