What are the key considerations for computer-implemented inventions under 35 U.S.C. 112?
For computer-implemented inventions, there are several key considerations under 35 U.S.C. 112, particularly regarding written description and enablement requirements. The MPEP 2185 highlights: “If the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill…
Read MoreWhen can referencing limitations from another claim lead to rejection?
While referencing limitations from another claim is generally acceptable, there are situations where it can lead to rejection. According to MPEP 2173.05(f): “However, where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”…
Read MoreCan a claim be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the description is not commensurate with the claim scope?
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the…
Read MoreWhat role does 35 U.S.C. 112(b) play in determining the subject matter of an invention?
What role does 35 U.S.C. 112(b) play in determining the subject matter of an invention? 35 U.S.C. 112(b) plays a crucial role in determining the subject matter of an invention by requiring clarity and precision in patent claims. According to MPEP 2172: “35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that the…
Read MoreWhen should an examiner make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for exemplary claim language?
An examiner should consider making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when exemplary claim language creates uncertainty about the claim’s scope. The MPEP 2173.05(d) states: “In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should…
Read More