How does the “way” prong of the function-way-result test apply in a prima facie case of equivalence?

The “way” prong of the function-way-result test is a critical component in establishing a prima facie case of equivalence. MPEP 2183 provides guidance on this aspect: “The examiner must explain how the prior art element performs the claimed function in substantially the same way as the claimed invention.” To satisfy the “way” prong, the examiner…

Read More

Can an applicant voluntarily identify grace period inventor-originated disclosures?

Yes, an applicant can voluntarily identify grace period inventor-originated disclosures. The MPEP encourages this practice: “Applicants can include a statement identifying any grace period inventor-originated disclosures in the specification upon filing. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6) and MPEP § 608.01(a). An applicant is not required to identify any prior inventor-originated disclosures or to use the format…

Read More

How does the Vanda case relate to the treatment or prophylaxis consideration in Step 2A Prong Two?

The Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. case is significant in the context of the treatment or prophylaxis consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2): “Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 126 USPQ2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims in Vanda recited a method of…

Read More

What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?

What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)? A valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) must meet specific criteria to qualify for the exception. According to MPEP 2146.02: “The joint research agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement should specifically…

Read More

What is the standard for utility in research tools and intermediate products?

The USPTO applies the same utility standards to research tools and intermediate products as it does to other inventions. According to MPEP 2107.01: “Labels such as ‘research tool,’ ‘intermediate’ or ‘for research purposes’ are not helpful in determining if an applicant has identified a specific and substantial utility for the invention.” The MPEP emphasizes that…

Read More

What is the utility requirement for patents?

The utility requirement for patents stipulates that a claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial, and credible. The MPEP states: “A claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible.“ This requirement ensures that patents are granted only for inventions that have a…

Read More

What is the utility requirement in patent law?

The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with…

Read More