Can a reference published after the filing date be used under MPEP 2124?
Can a reference published after the filing date be used under MPEP 2124? Yes, under certain circumstances, a reference published after the filing date of an application can be used as described in MPEP 2124. However, its use is limited and specific. The MPEP states: “References which do not qualify as prior art because they…
Read MoreCan post-filing date evidence be used to determine enablement or written description?
No, post-filing date evidence cannot be used to determine enablement or written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The MPEP 2124 clearly states: “It is impermissible to use a later factual reference showing the state of the art existing after the effective filing date of the application to determine whether the application is enabled or described…
Read MoreHow do changes in portability, integration, or separation of parts affect patentability?
Changes in portability, integration, or separation of parts are generally considered obvious modifications unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes often fall under routine engineering choices. Portability: “Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an…
Read MoreHow does the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) affect provisional application benefits?
The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) has introduced important changes regarding the benefit claims for provisional applications. According to MPEP 2133.02(a): “Effective December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional application filed after the expiration of the…
Read MoreHow does the availability of plant material affect enablement in prior art?
The availability of plant material is a critical factor in determining whether a prior art reference is enabling in plant genetics. According to MPEP 2121.03, “The mere reference to a plant with a particular name in a prior art publication does not by itself constitute the public availability of plant material.“ The MPEP further explains:…
Read MoreWhat role do plant deposits play in establishing enablement for prior art?
Plant deposits play a significant role in establishing enablement for prior art in plant genetics. According to MPEP 2121.03, “A deposit of seeds or plant material may be necessary to satisfy the enablement requirement.” This means that in some cases, a physical deposit of the plant material may be required to ensure that the prior…
Read MoreWhat is the “plain meaning” of a claim term?
The “plain meaning” of a claim term refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. As stated in the MPEP, “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person…
Read MoreHow is the plain meaning of claim terms determined in patent examination?
The plain meaning of claim terms is crucial in patent examination. According to MPEP 2173.01: “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the Phillips v. AWH Corp. case in claim interpretation?
The Phillips v. AWH Corp. case is a landmark decision that significantly impacts claim interpretation in patent examination and litigation. MPEP 2111 states: “The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’…
Read MoreHow does the Pfaff test apply to the “on sale” bar?
The Pfaff test, established by the Supreme Court in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., is used to determine if an invention was “on sale” for the purposes of the on-sale bar. According to MPEP 2133.03(b), the test has two conditions: The product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and The invention…
Read More