Is reduction to practice necessary to be considered an inventor?
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states: “Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of…
Read MoreHow does reduction to practice affect the determination of inventorship?
Reduction to practice plays a crucial role in determining inventorship, particularly in cases of competing inventors. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on this matter: “The inventor of the subject matter of a patent is presumed to be the individual or individuals named as inventors in the patent. In order to rebut this presumption, clear and…
Read MoreWhat constitutes a successful reduction to practice for a design patent?
Reduction to practice for design patents differs from utility patents. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on this topic: “In the case of a design patent application, the invention is reduced to practice when an embodiment of the design is created that allows a person skilled in the art to make an article embodying the design.”…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of redacted application publications in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejections?
Redacted application publications can play a role in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejections. The MPEP clarifies: In addition, a provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be made if the earlier filed, pending application has been published as redacted (37 CFR 1.217) and the subject matter relied upon in the rejection is not supported…
Read MoreWhat is a redacted application publication in patent law?
A redacted application publication is a special type of patent application publication where certain information has been removed or obscured. MPEP 2154.01(d) mentions redacted publications in the context of provisional rejections: “[A] provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be made, in the circumstances described below, if the earlier filed, pending application has been published…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of keeping records during experimental use?
What is the significance of keeping records during experimental use? Keeping detailed records during experimental use is crucial for inventors seeking to protect their patent rights. According to MPEP 2133.03(e), whether records were kept is one of the factors considered in determining if an activity qualifies as experimental use. Good record-keeping serves multiple purposes: It…
Read MoreWhat is the burden of proof in rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness?
According to MPEP 2145, if a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. As stated in the MPEP: “If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward…
Read MoreHow can an applicant rebut a rejection based on lack of utility?
When a patent application is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility, along with a corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the examiner’s prima facie showing. The MPEP provides guidance on how an applicant can respond: “There is no predetermined amount or character of evidence…
Read MoreHow can an applicant rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges?
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05: Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Teaching away: The applicant can show that the…
Read MoreWhat types of evidence can be used to rebut an obviousness rejection?
The MPEP outlines several types of evidence that can be used to rebut an obviousness rejection: Evidence of unexpected results Evidence that the claimed invention yields unexpectedly improved properties or properties not present in the prior art Evidence that the claimed invention was copied by others Evidence of the state of the art, the level…
Read More